Appeal No. 1997-3031
Application No. 08/411,509
of 200 nanometers or less so as to increase the O content of
3
the oxidizing gas." See appealed claim 1 reproduced above.
We have carefully reviewed the detailed stated rejection
found in the answer with further explanation in the examiner's
supplemental answer as to why the subject matter defined by
the appealed claims would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. However, we agree with appellant
essentially for the reasons set forth in his brief and reply
brief that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of
obviousness for the subject matter defined by the appealed
claims.
As a starting point for the examiner's stated rejection,
the examiner refers to certain "admitted prior art" found in
the specification at page 1, line 18, through page 3, line 21,
that describes prior art processes for forming either oxide
superconductor films or dielectric films by a molecular beam
epitaxy technique combined with a reactive co-evaporation
technique. As appellant accurately points out in his reply
brief at page 3, this "admitted prior art" is really nothing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007