Appeal No. 95-4761
Application No. 08/012,781
embodied in the invention." Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States
International Trade Commission, 75 F. 3d 1545, 1554, 37 USPQ2d
1609, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1996) citing Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel
Electronics,Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821-22, 6 USPQ2d 2010, 2013
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927 (1988). In the
present instance, the Examiner has provided no showing as to
why one of ordinary skill would consider the 500 µm grid size
diameter of Soga or the 200 Angstrom (0.02 µm) diameter of
Luryi to approximate Appellants' 10 µm dimension.
The Examiner at page 4 of the Answer has further
questioned the criticality of Appellants' 10 µm diameter size
and asserts the obviousness of any value between the 500 µm
and .02 µm grid sizes in the cited references. Appellants
have responded (Reply Brief, page 2) that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness since there is
no suggestion in either of the references that the grid
diameter size could be extended to any degree. In contrast to
Appellants grid layer which absorbs migrating dislocations,
Appellants point to the Luryi reference in which it is
disclosed (column 5, line 10) that if the grid dimension is
kept below 200 Angstroms (.02 µm) dislocations will be
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007