Appeal No. 1998-1548 Page 11
Application No. 08/660,304
to form the accessory pattern in the oxide film 4 formed on
the wire 3. While the proposed modification of Oka might
result in better visibility of the accessory pattern, we find
no suggestion for providing Oka with an ARC layer below the
oxide layer, except from appellants' disclosure.
Our reviewing court has stated that "[the] 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, citing In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the APA, Oka and Tominaga do not
suggest the desirability of placing an ARC layer between the
insulative layer and the base pad to increase the visual
observability of the patterned accessory, e.g., the characters
NEC, we agree with appellants (brief, page 9) that "[w]hile
the marks cited by Oka consists of a pattern in an oxide layer
on a metal layer, it would not have been obvious at the time
of Oka to insert an ARC layer beneath the oxide layer to form
the marks which are only cited for visual observations."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007