Appeal No. 2002-0128
Application No. 08/878,588
pages 5 and 6), that Chae lacks any teaching or suggestion of the
movement of the laser beam with a movement pitch that is related
to the arrangement pitch of the transistors.
After careful review of the Chae reference, in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. We find no disclosure in Chae
of any relationship between the movement pitch of the scanning
beam and the arrangement pitch of the transistors on the
substrate, let alone the particular relationship set forth in
independent claims 1 and 17. Although the Examiner suggests
(Answer, pages 4 and 9) the inherency of controlling the movement
pitch of the scanning beam in Chae so that overlapping regions do
not fall in the channel region of the transistor, we find no
evidence on the record to support such an assertion. To
establish inherency, evidence must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described
in the reference and would be recognized as such by persons of
ordinary skill. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d
1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007