Appeal No. 96-4052
Application 08/198,511
the light and concentrate the light on the area of the surface
where it is required" (col. 7, lines 22-24), which teaches
masking by focusing of the light source. Kohl teaches that
"[t]he light source may have a broad energy spectrum such as
an incandescent bulb, a limited energy spectrum such as a
mercury lamp or a narrow spectrum such as a laser source"
(col. 5, lines 47-50). It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill from Kohl to use a laser beam instead of
the light bulb in Forrest. The rejection of claim 45 is
sustained.
Claims 48 and 49
Appellants argue that Forrest fails to disclose forming
and removing an oxidized layer over the n-type SiC layer as
recited in claims 48 and 49 and "[t]he Examiner fails to
propose how Forrest et al. can be modified to arrive at the
presently recited invention of claims 48 and 49" (Br12). The
examiner offers no response and we do not find the limitation
in the references. It is the examiner's duty to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 48
and 49 is reversed.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007