Appeal No. 2005-2234
Application No. 10/135,005
II. The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection of claims 21, 31, 38, and 41
as being obvious over Kaga
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3 through 7 of the final office action mailed April 12,
2004. We particularly refer to the paragraph bridging pages 6
through 7 of this final office action. In this paragraph, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
inclined Kaga’s first/second particle beam source axis oriented
at an acute angle that is greater than 0 degrees, resulting in
an acute angle between the first/second beam source axis and the
first and second axis. The examiner states that motivation to
do so is “to impart an ion beam at an acute angle, greater than
0˚, to the substrate.” The examiner states further that it
would have been obvious to optimize operation of the claimed
invention. Final Office Action, page 7.
On page 5 of the Brief, appellants state that in the
Advisory Action, the examiner stated that it would be completely
obvious “to change Kaga’s relative angle theta by changing the
position of either Kaga’s first and/or second particle beam
sources. Further, it is appreciated that because Kaga’s stage 2
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007