Appeal 2007-3197
Application 10/817,131
we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
Appellant's arguments in the Principal and Reply Briefs on appeal
miss the thrust of the Examiner's rejections. It is not the Examiner's position
that the systems of Carducci and Grimbergen perform the method intended
for Appellant's system, namely, utilizing a fluorine plasma to transform the
surface of a conductive material into a passive layer. Rather, the Examiner's
rejections are based on facts not disputed by Appellant, namely, that both
references describe systems or apparatus that comprise the presently claimed
gas distribution system which provides a fluorine-based gas into a reaction
chamber and an excitation system that electrically excites the fluorine-based
gas to establish a plasma in the chamber.
The Examiner's rationale is that although neither reference describes
transforming the surface of a conductive layer, the system of each reference
is fully capable of doing so. The Examiner correctly sets forth that the
intended use of a claimed system or apparatus cannot serve to structurally
distinguish the system or apparatus from a system or apparatus of the prior
art that is used in a different manner, and that a claim recitation of a material
or article worked upon by the apparatus does not define the relevant
structure of the claimed system or apparatus.
Also, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination
that Grimbergen discloses a measurement and control system for the gas
distribution system, excitation system, pressure control system, and heating
system for facilitating the desired thickness of the composition of the formed
layer, or the rate at which the layer is formed (see Answer 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013