Appeal No. 95-2454
Application No. 07/396,733
Applicant also argues to the effect that one having ordinary skill in the art would not substitute
silicon oxide for polycrystalline silicon. Brief, pp. 17-19. Applicant notes that Frouin teaches that the
polycrystalline silicon was chosen for use in filling the grooves because the coefficient of expansion of the
polycrystalline material is substantially equal to that of the pockets. Brief, p. 18. Applicant then asserts
that expansion coefficient of silicon dioxide is significantly different from the thermal expansion coefficient
of silicon.
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s unsupported assertion is contradicted by Doo’s
disclosure of the interchangeability of the combination of silicon oxide and polycrystalline silicon and silicon
oxide alone for use in electrical isolation of integrated circuit components. Doo, col. 5, lines 12-16.
Additionally, applicant has not pointed us to any evidence in the record supporting the assertion that the
expansion coefficients of silicon oxide and silicon are “significantly different.” Counsel argument can not
take the place of evidence in the record. Weinar., 744 F.2d at 806, 223 USPQ at 374; Knorr, 671 F.2d
at 1373, 213 USPQ at 200; Greenfield, 571 F.2d at 1189, 197 USPQ at 230; Langer, 503 F.2d at 1395,
183 USPQ at 299.
Applicant asserts that there are a number of additional considerations that show the claimed subject
matter is patentable. Brief, pp. 34-38. Applicant argues (1) that the claimed method is widely used by
other companies, (2) that the industry has recognized the method as a major advancement in the art, and
(3) that the claimed invention satisfied a long felt need and has achieved commercial success. Applicant’s
rely on Exhibits C9-C15 as being evidence of third-party usage of the invention. We do not agree.
Applicant has failed to provide evidence sufficient to prove these points.
Exhibits C9-C15 are copies of publications or patents. Applicant has not identified the portions
of these documents where each limitation of the claimed process is described or where in the document
it indicates that any processes therein described have actually been used for wide scale commercial
manufacture of integrated circuits. Applicant has merely directed this board’s attention to a number of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007