Appeal No. 1998-3078 Page 5
Application No. 08/365,617
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
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, we consider the examiner's
rejection. Recognizing that Dhong does not teach a seam-free
substrate, the examiner alleges, "[i]t would have been obvious
to one skilled in this art to form Dhong et al's DRAM cell in
a 'seam-free' single crystal semiconductor substrate as
suggested by Hayden." (Examiner's Answer at 3)
“Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in
view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.”
Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239 (citing
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “It is impermissible to use
the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007