Appeal No. 1997-3695
Application No. 08/097,526
of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to
references relating to possible solutions to that problem.”
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA
1976) (considering the problem to be solved in a determination
of obviousness). The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance
Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 822 (1996), that for the determination of obviousness,
the court must answer whether one of ordinary skill in the art
who sets out to solve the problem and who had before him in
his workshop the prior art, would have been reasonably
expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
We find that both Nishida and Galeuchet a use selective
epitaxial deposition method to form quantum dots in quantum
dot sized openings etched in an epitaxy mask. Nishida and
Galeuchet disclose conventional etching methods to form a
small opening in the epitaxy mask where the quantum dot is to
be formed rather than an epitaxy masking that provides a small
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007