Appeal No. 95-2914 Page 4
Application No. 07/447,969
Claims 9, 10, 29-31, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holmberg I or II each
in view of any of Ovshinsky I, Ovshinsky II, or Kanai as
applied to claims 1-6, 28, and 32-34 above, and further in
view of Cook.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner in the respective briefs and answers thereto. In so
doing, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants' basic
contention that the examiner has not carried his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections.
The examiner acknowledges that neither Holmberg reference
teaches the selection of the process parameters of the plasma
enhanced chemical vapor deposition of an amorphous silica film
including the temperature and gaseous environment thereof so
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007