Appeal No. 1997-3635
Application No. 08/498,357
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6,
8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing court states
in Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), focused on the
procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching
a conclusion under section 103. As adapted to
ex parte procedure, Graham is interpreted as
continuing to place the "burden of proof on the
Patent Office which requires it to produce the
factual basis for its rejection of an application
under section 102 and 103" [citing In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967)]
[emphasis added].
After a review of Wong’s disclosure, we fail to find any
teachings related to the thickness of the metal and the
silicon layers. We do not agree with the Examiner that the
claimed thicknesses are conventional and obtained by merely
changing the dimensions disclosed in the prior art. In this
case, the prior art teaches the relative thicknesses but is
silent with regard to the actual thickness of barrier
metallization and the amorphous silicon. Therefore, Wong
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007