Appeal No. 1998-2987 Page 7
Application No. 08/250,332
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, and for all the reasons
expressed by the appellants, we reverse the rejections.
In particular, we find the appellants' following argument
particularly persuasive.
In Item 11 Response to Arguments, starting on
page 9, the Examiner discusses the teachings of
Yahama [sic] and maintains that absorption of
silicon nodules would take place to form the trinary
compound given the barrier layer of Ti as employed
with the Al-Si wiring and states that despite
numerous holdings in the various Office Actions, no
evidence has been provided to prove that the
Examiner's holding of inherent absorption would not
take place. However, as pointed out in the Brief
and previously, it is noted that there is nothing in
the reference to suggest the absorption and, in
fact, Yamaha specifically states that the
precipitation occurs with recrystallization and
mentions nothing about absorption of the silicon
nodules. Yamaha uses the two titanium layers on
each side of the aluminum layer so that even with
the nodules' formation, this does not destroy the
electrical circuit. It is submitted that there is
nothing in the record to support the Examiner's
holding of inherent absorption other than his own
opinion, which is not suggested by any evidence.
(Reply Br. at 2.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007