Appeal No. 2004-0421
Application No. 09/749,923
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
Claims 12 to 18, 20 to 27 and 30 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of the admitted prior art and Fagan; and claim 19
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of the admitted
prior art, Fagan and Holtkamp. (Answer, pp. 3-5).
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the
Examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ position in that the
Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. We will limit our
discussion to independent claims 12 and 22.3
We find claims 12 and 22 are directed to a component of semiconductor
processing equipment. The component comprises a fullerene containing material
3 The Examiner did not cite the Holtkamp reference in the rejection of claims 12 and 22.
Thus, we will not include a discussion of this reference in our decision.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007