Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
feature sizes (for example, gate emitter openings) desired by Kikiuchi. In
this regard, the Examiner refers to Deckman for a teaching that smaller size
mask particles of a nanoparticle size are known to be available for use as
masks for etching (see, e.g., Deckman; col. 6, ll. 25-43). Moreover, the
Examiner relies on Deckman for showing that etching with reactive ions is a
well-known etching method, which would have been obvious to use in
Kikuchi to obtain the expected benefits of using such a known etching
technique (Deckman, col. 1, ll. 46-52). We note that the test for combining
references is not what the individual references suggest, as if applied alone.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that
the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious
the invention under review.”).
In the face of the combined teachings of the applied references as set
forth above and in the Answer, Appellants’ contentions concerning a lack of
suggestion for the claimed combination is not persuasive as Kikuchi
furnishes more than adequate reasons for one of ordinary skill in the art to
seek out smaller mask particles, as shown to be available in the prior art, for
forming smaller pores and resultant feature sizes. Moreover, Appellants’
arguments to the effect that the applied references would not teach one of
ordinary skill in the art to use reactive ion etching and to form nanoscale
pore sizes are not persuasive for reasons advanced above and in the Answer.
In this regard, Deckman clearly discloses etching with reactive radicals
(ions) to be an available chemical etching technique when using small
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013