Appeal No. 1997-2919
Application No. 08/573,921
appellants, the burden of establishing that there is a
substantial difference in result with regard to the extent of
silane removal falls upon appellants. Cf. In re Thorpe, 777
F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best,
562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Appellants have adduced no credible evidence of any
differences, let alone any patentably significant differences,
in this regard.
As for the rejection of claims 5 and 7, we agree with
appellants that Nakayama would appear to teach away from
irradiating a silane layer in an ozone atmosphere in the
context of appellants’ claimed invention. In appellants’
claimed method, irradiation is used to remove a silane layer
from a substrate. As we see it, the irradiation procedure in
Nakayama serves an entirely different purpose, i.e., to
enhance the density and other properties of a silane film
coated on a substrate. Thus, we find that Nakayama would lead
a person of ordinary skill in the art away from using a UV-
ozone treatment in the context of the method defined by
appellants’ claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007