Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such
reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication
in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available
to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil,
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293,
227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S.
1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These
showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner cites Lehrer as a teaching of making an
SOG for a semiconductor device which is composed of TEOS,
TEOG, alcohol, nitric acid and water. The respective amounts
of these components in Lehrer are set forth in grams of each
constituent in the mixture [columns 9-10]. Although the
examiner asserts that Lehrer teaches the percentages of TEOS
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007