Appeal No. 2006-1820
Application No. 08/889,440
experimentation. In fact, it is not entirely clear to us what, exactly, the examiner is alleging is
non-enabling about the instant claimed invention.
Since the examiner has given us no reason to doubt the objective truth of the what is
disclosed in the specification, we find no rationale basis for alleging non-enablement of the
instant claimed subject matter.
Thus, we will not sustain any of the rejections based on either the first or the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We turn, now, to the rejections based on prior art.
The examiner offers multiple rejections. First, in rejecting all of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner cites either one of Misaka or Baumann as a primary reference.
Taking claim 1 as exemplary, the examiner contends, at page 50 of the answer, that either one of
these references discloses simulating the dynamics of particles which are interacting with a
substrate during processing of the substrate. In particular, the examiner points to Misaka’s
Figures 1, 2, 3b, 4, and 5, and column 1, lines 35-68, column 2, lines 29-34 and 49-59, column 3,
lines 16-68, and column 4, lines 50-65; and to Baumann’s Figure 1 and page 4.4.1 for a
disclosure of an apparatus for simulating phenomena of a particle formed of adsorbate particles
and substrate particles.
With regard to a “kinetic condition setting unit,” the examiner alleges that this is
“inherent” in particle simulators, such as Monte Carlo simulators. With regard to such a setting
unit setting information for defining a plurality of generation periods and a corresponding
number of adsorbate particles to be generated during each generation period, the examiner points
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007