Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
2. Claims 6, 7, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lee.
3. Claims 6, 7, 11-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Stevens.
4. Claims 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevens.
5. Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Takashi.
6. Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee and Takashi in view of Stevens.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. The Examiner contends that the phrase “second
distance” is indefinite because this distance is to be selected based upon the
material to be deposited on the substrate.
For this ground of rejection, the issue before us is: Is there is a
reasonable basis to believe that the ordinary artisan in the art of deposition
technology would not be able to determine the scope of the claim? We
answer this question in the affirmative.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013