Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition rate..." is from the specification. > I should note that it does not appear that the patent examiner considered the 1997 patent directly relevant because they did not cite it... However, they likely did at least look at it since it is listed in the specification. Again that quote from the sp…
Wow, great catch! I just copied the text idly without reading it closely. I agree that the examiner may not have looked at the discussed reference (US5653925A). (Disclaimer: this is not legal advice.)
testing