Appeal No. 1998-0341
Application No. 08/476,293
However, the Examiner’s reason to combine references is
precisely a process consideration, i.e., “because the
inorganic ‘encapsulation’ layer prevents sputter etching and
redepositing of the metallization during subsequent patterning
of a later applied layer of organic material.” (answer-page
5). (Emphasis added.) We contrast this with one of
Appellant’s reasons for using the encapsulation layer, which
is a final product reason. At page 7, lines 1-4 of the
specification it states:
An additional advantage afforded
by this embodiment is that organic-
containing layer 22 may be completely
enclosed by the passivating and
encapsulating material, such that
conducting material is completely
isolated from organic-containing
material.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007