Appeal No. 1997-1140
Application No. 08/175,865
known in the art fails to cure the deficiencies of the
teachings in the "admitted prior art" with respect to the
rejection of claims 30 and 32-34. Manifestly, the examiner
has failed to establish how the teachings of the "admitted
prior art" suggest "directionally etching" a CaF film "using
2
radiant energy at an intensity sufficient to produce
directional etching of said film" as required by claim 30.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
"admitted prior art" and the rejection of claim 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the "admitted prior art" are
REVERSED. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 24-26, 28 and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
"admitted prior art" and the rejection of claims 32-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the "admitted prior art"
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007