Appeal No. 2006-1820
Application No. 08/889,440
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, and 22-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
either one of Misaka or Baumann in view of the examiner’s own experience, is reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-20, 22-26, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over various combinations of Yamada, Misaka, Baumann, Husinsky, Kinema/SIM, Reeves
and Cohen, we also will not sustain this rejection as, in our view, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner indicates, at pages 66-68, what is generally allegedly shown by each of
Yamada, Misaka,, Baumann and Husinsky, but the examiner not once applies any of these
teachings specifically to the language of each claim, indicating what, in each reference, allegedly
corresponds to each of the claim limitations. Mere general allegations of broad disclosures of
each of the references is not enough to make a prima facie case of obviousness. For example, at
page 67 of the answer, the examiner points to pages 4.4.1, and Figures 1-2 of Baumann, and
states that Baumann discloses “3D modeling of sputtering using a mesoscopic hard-sphere
Monte Carlo model (see fig. 1 of Baumann et al.). Baumann et al. simulate the behavior of
clusters as they interact with a substrate (note that the use of ion cluster beams and molecular
beams for deposition and/or sputtering are well known techniques; this phenomena has also been
simulated.)”
The examiner then goes on to say that Baumann (as well as Yamada or Misaka or
Husinsky) “discloses all claim limitations except for a teaching animation of the simulation”
(answer-page 68), relying on Kinema/SIM or Reeves or Cohen for a teaching of such animation.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007