Appeal No. 1996-3909 Page 4
Application No. 08/115,440
meeting the specified ramping, annealing and cooling steps
that are common to all of the claims on appeal . According to1
the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
process of Paulson by using “a rapid thermal anneal process as
taught by Sparks because it is desired to dissolve the metal
precipitates and keep the precipitates in solution by rapid
thermal annealing” (final rejection, page 8).
Besides the difficulty we have with the examiner’s
position regarding the obviousness of using the rapid thermal
annealing process steps of Sparks in Paulson especially in the
face of the contentions of appellant regarding the lack of
motivation established by the examiner for such a substitution
(brief, pages 10-14) , there is another significant hurdle2
that has not been cleared by the examiner. In particular, we
note that even if the proposed modification of Paulson’s
1The other applied references have not been specifically relied upon by the
examiner to teach or suggest those method steps.
2We note, for example, that appellant has asserted that the “problems addressed
by Sparks ‘874 do not exist in thin film resistors” (brief, page 14). The examiner has
not adequately rebutted this contention of appellant at pages 8 and 9 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007