Appeal No. 1998-2969
Application No. 08/317,818
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Appellants argue that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness wherein the prior art applied against the claims teaches or
suggests only the end face breakage preventing layer and does not teach or suggest
the use of two layers (protection film and breakage prevention film) on the end light
emitting faces. (See brief at page 6-11.) We agree with appellants. The examiner
argues that SiO2 is taught at column 7 of Fuji Electronic to provide improved benefits.
The examiner also discusses that native oxides are inherently grown on semiconductor
material surfaces and that these oxides would form a protecting layer. (See answer at
pages 2-3.) We find that this is speculation on the part of the examiner which is not
supported by the disclosure in the prior art. It appears the examiner is
relying upon the presence of SiO2 to improve adhesion and native oxides to establish
that the prior art of Amano and Fuji Electronic contain both a protecting and breakage
preventing films. We disagree with the examiner. Amano and Fuji Electronic clearly
state that the SiO2 is dispersed in a solvent and forms a “slurry” which forms the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007