Appeal 2006-2992
Application 10/073,710
exception of the rejection for obviousness-type double patenting over claims
22-27 of Asmussen ‘668 in view of Gruen (Answer 9). We REVERSE this
ground of rejection for reasons stated below.
OPINION
THE REJECTIONS BASED ON § 103(a)
Since the Asmussen references are cumulative at best, we will limit
our discussion to Asmussen ‘103, as Appellants’ principal arguments are
also limited to this reference (Br. 9-14).2 We also note that Appellants only
present arguments with regard to claim 1 on appeal when discussing the
combination of Gruen and Asmussen ‘103, and thus we will also limit our
discussion to this claim.
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, the following
facts:
(1) Gruen discloses a method of forming a nanocrystalline
diamond film by plasma chemical vapor deposition (CVD),
where the plasma is formed by radiofrequency and/or
microwave using argon as the only inert gas in admixture
with hydrogen and an unsubstituted hydrocarbon (Answer 3
and 9);
(2) Gruen does not disclose that the plasma CVD process is
performed in an apparatus as required by claim 1 on appeal
(Answer 3);
(3) Ausmussen ‘103 discloses an apparatus for depositing
diamond films on silicon substrates, where this apparatus is
2 We also note that Figure 1 disclosed by Asmussen ‘103 is identical to
Figure 1 of this application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013