Appeal No. 2000-0038
Application 08/751,369
films have too high a surface roughness, and that the
intermediate layer reduces the surface roughness, thereby
reducing propagation losses in the waveguide (col. 7, lines 3-
23).
Claim 43
The appellants argue that Heming does not disclose applying
both the intermediate layer and the waveguide layer by reactive
DC sputtering (brief, page 21). Heming, however, teaches
applying the intermediate layer by ion sputtering (col. 12,
lines 51-55). The appellants do not dispute that this teaching
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
applying the intermediate layer by reactive DC sputtering.
Forming the waveguide layer by reactive DC sputtering would have
been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by
Heming as discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
For the above reasons we conclude that the processes recited
in the appellants’ claims 10, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 41
and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
processes recited in the appellants’ claims 36 and 39.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007