Appeal No. 96-3614
Application 08/259,154
Schwarz's gap-insulating layer 17 rather than to Schwarz's
substrate-insulating layer 15. The examiner has not
satisfactorily explained, and it is not apparent to us, why
one skilled in the art would have been motivated to make
Schwarz's substrate-insulating layer 15 as thin as Diepers's
gap-insulating layer. The examiner's contention that "it
would have been common for one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize what was known about thicknesses of any insulating
layers in the art and . . . one of ordinary skill would have
been inclined to optimize the insulation layer in question
through routine experimentation" (Answer at 11) is
unpersuasive for several reasons. The first is that the
examiner has not explained which characteristic the artisan
would be trying to optimize that would lead him to make
Schwarz's substrate-insulating layer thinner than the
thickness of 10 Fm or more thickness this layer has in
conventional devices (Spec. at 9, lines 6-8). The only
characteristic of layer 22 that Diepers mentions is its
insulating characteristic, which would not be optimized by
making it thinner than its conventional value.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007