Appeal No. 1997-2628 Page 6
Application No. 08/383,713
While the examiner notes that the device made by Higaki
may have applicability as a microwave device component, we do
not share the examiner’s viewpoint that such a general
teaching of utility would have suggested the claimed process
herein. In this regard, we note that the showing of the
teaching or motivation to combine prior art references must be
clear and particular. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We are cognizant that Higaki mentions a Josephson device,
Matisoo switching elements, Anacker memory device and Super-
conducting Quantum Interference Device as possible
applications of thin film devices (column 1, lines 24-40 and
carryover sentence, columns 4 and 5). However, the examiner
has not convincingly explained how any of these potential
applications would have suggested a method corresponding to
the claimed method herein. In addition, the examiner has not
pointed to any particular disclosure of either of the
secondary references that would suggest modifying the process
of Higaki to arrive at the herein claimed manufacturing method
steps. We note, for example, that the transmission line (10)
in Figure 1 of Jack includes a ground plane (12) on one side
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007