Appeal No. 2005-1926
Application No. 10/188,723
The examiner relies upon the following reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Todd 2002/0016084 A1 Feb. 7, 2002
Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Todd.
Appellants group claims 2-8, 10, 11, 15 and 16 together,
and group claims 12 and 17 separately. We therefore consider
claims 3, 12, and 17 in this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief, the answer,
and the evidence of record. This review has led us to the
following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-8, 10-12, and
15-17 as being obvious over Todd
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-5 of the answer.
Beginning on page 4 of the brief, appellants argue that the
instant claims are directed to a method in which substantially
all of the nitrogen contained in the deposited material (claims
3, 15, and 16), substantially all of the nitrogen in the excited
species (claim 10), exclusively all of the nitrogen of the layer
(claim 12), or precisely all of the third chemical precursor
(claim 17), are derived from nitrogen gas. Appellants provide
supportive arguments on pages 4-14 of the brief, which we have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007