Appeal No. 1998-1216
Application 08/356,194
deposition. We find nothing and the examiner points to
nothing in this disclosure which would have suggested
successively forming first and second films by chemical vapor
deposition much less of forming these films without exposing
the first film to air. These last mentioned features are
disclosed only in the appellant's specification. Thus, we are
constrained to regard the examiner's obviousness conclusion as
being based on impermissible hindsight derived from the
appellant's own disclosure rather than being based upon a
teaching, suggestion, or incentive derived from the applied
prior art.
The examiner has not relied upon any of the other
applied references for a teaching or suggestion of the afore-
mentioned claim features. It follows that the previously dis-
cussed deficiency in the examiner's obviousness conclusion
taints each of the rejections advanced on this appeal. As a
consequence, we will not sustain any of these rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007