Appeal No. 95-2138
Application 07/852,078
Appellants argue in the brief and the reply brief that
Swartz fails to teach or suggest a Aferroelectric thin film
structure comprising a substrate and a modulated lead zirconate
titanate and PbTiO3 heterostructure ferroelectric thin film
formed on said substrate@ as recited in Appellants= claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Swartz does not suggest the
desirability of using the two materials, PZT and PT together on
the same substrate.
Upon a careful review of Swartz, we find that Swartz does
not teach or suggest a ferroelectric thin film structure as
recited in Appellants= claim 1. We are not inclined to dispense
with proof by evidence when the proposition at issue is not
supported by a teaching in a prior art reference, common
knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232,
132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961). In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668,
148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
In addition, we find that Swartz does not suggest the
desirability of using the two materials, PZT and PT, together on
the same substrate. The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007