Appeal No. 95-3898
Application 08/156,953
artisan, in addition to the examiner’s rationale, that the
“family” of perovskite-forming crystal structures listed in
Hoekje would have performed in a similar manner. Indeed,
SrRuO is specifically stated at col. 4, lines 9 and 10 of
3
Hoekje as having such a perovskite crystalline structure. In
any event, the examiner makes good use of the teaching at the
bottom of the first column of Lichtenberg at page 1140 which
indicates that Sr RuO likely could have been grown by standard
2 4
thin-film techniques on commonly used substrates such as
SrTiO . Obviously then, in line with the examiner’s
3
reasoning, it would have been obvious to have used SrRuO in a
3
similar manner.
In our view, the examiner’s art-based reasoning expressed
in the responsive arguments portion of the answer does not
lead us to reverse the rejection even though it sets forth a
rationale which may be fairly characterized as a generally
disfavored obvious to try approach. However, obviousness does
not require absolute predictability of success, only a
reasonable expectation of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903-904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Indeed,
it is stated, as expressed and noted by the examiner, at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007