Appeal No. 96-1669
Application 08/054,125
On page 6 of the brief, Appellants argue that Ohta
fails to teach the two claimed features of claim 1, AlSiN, the
specific material used to make up the moisture proof film, and
the product of the relative index of moisture proof film and
the thickness thereof is 42 nanometers or less. Appellants
emphasize that these limitations are neither shown nor sug-
gested by Ohta. On page 7 of the brief, Appellants point to
the declaration in the record which compares one of the dis-
closed materials for making up the moisture proof film taught
in Ohta with Appellants' material AlSiN. Appellants point to
the fact that Declarant has shown that the Appellants' mate-
rial AlSiN is superior to the material taught in Ohta. Appel-
lants argue that the declaration
provides evidence of superiority of AlSiN, and directly re-
futes the Examiner's position that the skilled artisan would
find it a matter of routine experimentation to choose AlSiN
instead of one of the materials disclosed in Ohta.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner states that
Ohta does not expressly show the moisture proof film to be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007