Appeal No. 96-0289
Application 07/935,301
Fujita provides reason to believe that the absorption recited in appellants’ claim 19 is an inherent
characteristic of Fujita’s method. Appellants therefore have the burden of providing evidence that
appellants’ claimed method differs from that disclosed by Fujita. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55, 195 USPQ 430,
433 (CCPA 1977); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213,
169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). Because appellants have not carried this burden, we affirm the
rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Fujita.
Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
At the outset, we note that appellants state that the claims stand or fall in two groups, where the
first group is claims 1 and 2 and the second group is claim 19 (brief, page 5). We therefore limit our
discussion to one claim in each group, namely, claims 1 and 19. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
Because claim 19 is anticipated by Fujita as discussed above, and because anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Skoner,
517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181
USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding appellants’ claim 1, Fujita discloses forming a polysilicon pad on top of an insulating
layer (page 8; Fig. 4). A fusible metal link is formed on top of and in contact with the pad, and a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007