Appeal 2007-1851
Application 10/020,461
claims” (Br. 15, last para.). While Appellants focus upon the plasma
enhanced chemical vapor deposition process described at column 7,
lines 13-22 of Johnson, Johnson teaches that a number of chemical vapor
deposition processes may be employed, such as Appellants’ high density
plasma chemical vapor deposition process (see col. 4, ll. 25 et seq.).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP/AMAT
Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013