Appeal No. 1998-2309 Page 6
Application No. 08/277,035
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to
the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
We begin with independent claim 14. The claim recites,
inter alia, "providing a liquid precursor comprising barium,
strontium, and titanium together in a common solution;
depositing said precursor directly on said first metal
electrode to form a thin film." The examiner's position
(answer, page 4) is that:
Swartz et al. Is [sic] considered to show all
the steps of these claims with the exception [sic]
Swartz et al uses a first layer of sol-gel
perovskite precursor material before applying a
second layer of sol-gel perovskite (col. 3, lines
53+). Swartz et al further recites [sic] because of
the first layer, the second layer has better
cystallinity densities and crystallizes at lower
temperature and shorter times than if deposited
directly on the substrate (col. 4, lines 1-6). The
substrates may have electrodes (col. 7, lines 59+).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007