Appeal 2007-3197
Application 10/817,131
Appellant contends that Carducci "does not teach, suggest, or even
contemplate memory cell formation let alone an excitation system that
exposes a conductive layer to be transformed into a passive layer as in the
claimed invention" (Principal Br. 4, last para.). However, this form of
argument that is prevalent throughout the Principal and Reply Briefs does
not refute the Examiner's position that Carducci describes a system that is
capable of transforming an exposed conductive layer to a passive layer.
Appellant's argument that the Examiner's finding concerning the capability
of Carducci's system is incorrect lacks factual support. Appellant focuses
upon the particular process disclosed by Carducci rather than what the
system is capable of. As explained by the Examiner, Grimbergen discloses
that the plasma processing apparatus is capable of performing a wide variety
of etching, deposition and treatment processes. We note that Appellant does
not address the Examiner's finding that Appellant's memory cell formation
requires many single steps, such as the deposition and etching of material,
which the apparatus of Grimbergen is fully capable of performing.
The flaw in Appellant's line of argument is underscored in the
statement that "[s]ince the claimed invention contemplates exposing an
underlying conductive layer to the electrically-excited fluorine-based gas, it
is clear that the fluorine-based gas is selectively only being applied to the
underlying layer that is being exposed via a trench (as claimed, for example,
in claim 4)" (Reply Br., sentence bridging pages 2-3). Manifestly, how
Appellant contemplates using the claimed system is not germane to the
structure defined by the claimed system, vis-à-vis, the structures described
by Carducci and Grimbergen. It must be emphasized that Appellant is
claiming a system, i.e., an apparatus, not a method of using the system.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013