Appeal No. 96-1567 Page 7
Application No. 08/112,914
Therefore, Koyanagi does not teach “said first isolated oxide film limited to less than the
given width of said first opposed sidewall” as set forth in claim 13.
The Examiner’s answer is silent in responding to this argument beyond the marked
up Figures of the prior art to Koyanagi discussed above. Therefore, we agree with
appellant in the absence of a clear teaching or suggestion in the prior art or a convincing
line of reasoning by the Examiner.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claim, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 13.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 13 are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed claims 15 and 16
which depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007