Appeal No. 95-2454
Application No. 07/396,733
documents. In our view, it is not asking too much of an appellant to identify in the brief the specific portions
of the evidence supporting appellant’s argument. See, Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., 44 USPQ2d
1719, 1723 n.16 (N.D. Ill. 1997). We decline to venture into this type of analysis without guidance from
the applicant. We also note that a mere description of a process in a publication or patent may indicate
that others knew of the process, but does not, standing alone, indicate that the process is in commercial use
by the authors of the publication or others.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention has been recognized in the industry as a major
advancement. Brief, p. 35. It is asserted that the claimed subject matter is referred to in the industry as
the “isoplanar process.” Applicant then refers to documents allegedly indicating that integrated circuit
manufacturers found the isoplanar technique as a significant development.
Again applicant has not identified the specific portions of the evidence showing that the claimed
process as specifically set out in applicant’s claims is commonly referred to as the isoplanar process.
Indeed, it appears that the process described by Frouin and Murphy could also be referred to as an
“isoplanar process.” Each of these references teaches a process in which the oxide isolation channel is
substantially coplanar with the top surface of the epitaxial layer. See Frouin, Figure 8c and Murphy, Figure
5.
Applicant also argues that the invention has been recognized in the “patent business.” Applicant
notes that U.S. patent 3,648,125, said to be directed to the integrated circuits made by the claimed
method, has been cited in over 100 subsequently issued patents. Brief, p. 35. We see no persuasive value
in the fact that the invention has received “recognition” in the “patent business.” Recognition in the patent
business, in our view, is simply not relevant to the obviousness issue. Obviousness is determined from the
perspective of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art --a hypothetical worker in the art--
not from the perspective of someone in the patent business. In any event, we fail to see how the mere fact
that a patent has been often cited during the prosecution relating to other inventions proves the importance
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007