Appeal No. 97-1625
Application No. 08/415,900
OPINION
The claims have been rejected under 35 USC § 103. The
examiner therefore bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
The appellants’ invention is directed to improvements in
microsensors of the type that are exposed to harsh environments.
The device comprises a pressure sensor device including a cavity
extending from a first major surface, the cavity having a
plurality of sidewalls and an upper surface that forms a
diaphragm with a second major surface. A transducer is formed
contiguous with the second major surface. An inorganic
protective film is formed “on the plurality of sidewalls and the
upper surface of the cavity” (independent claim 8). These
limitations are repeated in independent method claim 25. For
purposes of our evaluation of the examiner’s rejections, it is
important to note that the appellants have attached particular
significance to the limitation regarding the protective film, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007