Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783
cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re
Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA
1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974).
Appellants argue that Clabes does not suggest that a
substrate temperature of 60EC or less should be used when
sputtering chromium onto polyimides (brief, page 6). Clabes
does not specifically disclose this combination of
temperature, metal and substrate. However, as discussed
above, the reference would have fairly suggested this
combination to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that Clabes teaches away
from appellants’ claimed invention by stating that the
adhesion increased at low energy irradiation temperatures
above room temperature (col. 8, lines 43-45). We are not
convinced by this argument because Clabes does not teach that
the process is inoperable at room temperature but, instead,
teaches that there is a benefit to using higher temperatures.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007