Appeal No. 1997-3031
Application No. 08/411,509
more than a framework for the examiner's stated rejection
which provides little or no motivation for any of the proposed
modifications even in light of the teachings of the applied
references. The mere fact that this "admitted prior art"
process could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must persuasively explain why
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the desirability of the proposed modifications. See
Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
Even if we agreed with the examiner that the relied upon
prior art references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the desirability of carrying out a prior art
process under the ultra low vacuum conditions defined by the
herein claims, we cannot agree with the examiner that the
relied upon prior art references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art 1) the desirability of utilizing
an oxidizing gas of oxygen including about 70 volume percent
ozone locally supplied in the vicinity of the substrate, and
2) illuminating the growing film with ultraviolet having a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007