Appeal 2007-2197
Application 10/254,119
discloses sputtering and not deflection of the particles in the plume (Br. 5).
Appellants attached a copy of a 37 C.F.R. § 132 declaration (the Walton
Declaration), submitted March 21, 2005, seeking to establish that Nakamura
uses an ion beam for sputtering and not the deflection of particles (Br. 4).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Nakamura discloses using a single ion source 14 which is directed
through a plume 12 directly in front of a substrate 5 (col. 2, ll. 44-47; col. 4,
ll. 64-67). Nakamura further discloses that the high energy ion beam
emanating from ion source 14 may “move[ ] out” (i.e., deflect) part of the
film-forming material or silicon atoms from plume 12 (Nakamura, col. 5, ll.
36-42).
Nakamura plainly discloses all of Appellants’ claimed features.
Appellants have not shown where any claim feature is not present in
Nakamura’s disclosed invention.
Rather, Appellants argue and provide the Walton Declaration seeking
to establish that Nakamura “teach[es] away” from using the ion source 14
for deflection of particles. It is unclear, and Appellants have not explained,
how this argument is relevant to the determination of whether Nakamura
anticipates the claimed invention. In any event, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not be discouraged from practicing Nakamura’s single ion source
embodiment, which clearly anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013