Appeal 2007-2197
Application 10/254,119
Regarding Appellants’ sputtering versus deflection argument, we
adopt the Examiner’s position that “sputtering particles causes a deflection
of the particles through momentum transfer” (Answer 8). Moreover, we
agree with the Examiner’s position that since “Nakamura[’s] . . . energy
range of the ions [i.e., 400 to 1100 eV] is the same as Appellant[s’] energy
range of ions [i.e., 800 eV],” the deflection of the particles by the ion source
14 in Nakamura must occur (Answer 9).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1,
4, and 5.
THE § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Appellants do not separately argue the following rejections: (1)
dependent claims 2 and 3 under § 103(a) over Nakamura, and (2) dependent
claim 6 under § 103(a) over Nakamura in view of Matsumaru. Rather,
Appellants base the viability of these rejections on the propriety of rejecting
independent claim 1 under § 102(b) over Nakamura. As we discussed
above, we determine that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5
under § 102(b) over Nakamura is proper.
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s following rejections: (1)
dependent claims 2 and 3 under § 103(a) over Nakamura, and (2) dependent
claim 6 under § 103(a) over Nakamura in view of Matsumaru.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013