Appeal No. 1998-2649
Application No. 08/616,990
examiner's following viewpoint to the contrary:
In response to the argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been
realistically led to dramatically reconstruct
Canon's apparatus by providing an RF conductive
coil, cylindrical target, segmented target, and
biased substrate, simply because such features are
employed by Barnes et al. for an entirely different
objective (i.e.[,] in Barnes the objective is to
deposit in high aspect ratio openings and in Canon
the objective is deposit over large areas), it is
argued that Canon and Barnes et al. objective are
[sic, is] the same. Specifically, Canon suggest
filling in fine contact pores (i.e.[,] aspect ratio
holes) (See Canon translation page 12) and Barnes et
al. suggest filling in high aspect ratio holes (see
Barnes et al. Column 4[,] lines 62-64).
Unlike the examiner, we do not regard the page 12
disclosure of Canon that "fine contact pores can be fattened"
as suggesting the filling of high aspect ratio holes of the
type taught by Barnes (and the appellant). Indeed, we
perceive merit in the appellant's position that this
disclosure of Barnes is ambiguous. From our perspective, the
examiner's interpretation of Canon's aforementioned disclosure
is based upon conjecture, speculation or assumption, and it is
well settled that a Section 103 rejection must rest on a
factual basis rather than conjecture, speculation or
assumption. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007