Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
deficiency, the Examiner turns to the photolithographic
techniques disclosed by Ghandhi and Kameyama for etching
conductor films. In the Examiner’s view (Answer, pages 4 and 5),
the skilled artisan would have been motivated and found it
obvious to utilize photolithographic techniques as taught by
Ghandhi and Kameyama for patterning the conductor film in Taji,
thereby achieving precise patterning as well as protecting the
device substrate during etching.
In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with
evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but elected not to make
in the Briefs have not been considered in this decision (note 37
CFR § 1.192).
In response, Appellant asserts the failure of the Examiner
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. According to
Appellant (Brief, page 13; Reply Brief, page 8), the modification
of Taji with Ghandhi and Kameyama would not result in the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007