Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of
one of ordinary skill in the art); In re
Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (“Having
established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then
properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness
‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill
in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”);
see also In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.” (citations omitted)).
Appellants’ contentions do not successfully rebut the prima facie case.
We determine that the advantage of not exposing the mask member to film
forming gases if positioned outside of the deposition chamber between the
transparent light and the VUV light relied on by Appellants would have been
apparent to one of ordinary skill in this art, and thus, on this record, this
advantage does not establish an unexpected critical result.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Anderson, Lee and Shi with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 10 and 20 would
have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013