Ex Parte Hui - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-3197                                                                            
               Application 10/817,131                                                                      
                      an excitation system that electrically excites the fluorine based gas to             
               establish a plasma in the chamber which interacts with a conductive surface                 
               to transform the surface from a conductive material into a passive layer that               
               includes a conductivity facilitating compound having conductivity                           
               facilitating properties.                                                                    

                      The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of                
               the appealed claims:                                                                        
               Carducci    2003/0037880 A1  Feb. 27, 2003                                                  
               Grimbergen    6,835,275 B1  Dec. 28, 2004                                                   
                      Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a system for in-situ                    
               surface treatment to make a memory cell.  The system comprises a gas                        
               distribution system that selectively provides a fluorine-based gas into a                   
               processing chamber, and an excitation system for making a plasma from the                   
               gas in the chamber.  The plasma is used to change the surface of a                          
               conductive material into a passive layer.                                                   
                      Appealed claims 1-16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                  
               as being anticipated by Carducci.  Claims 1-10 stand rejected under                         
               35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Grimbergen.  Also, claims 17-19                  
               stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carducci                   
               in view of Grimbergen.                                                                      
                      With the exception of claims 14 and 17, Appellant has not separately                 
               argued the appealed claims under rejection.  Accordingly, with the noted                    
               exceptions, the groups of claims separately rejected by the Examiner stand                  
               or fall together.                                                                           
                      We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for                        
               patentability.  However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the                
               claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.  Accordingly,              

                                                    2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013