Appeal No. 1999-0418 Page 5
Application No. 08/517,036
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
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 and appellants' argument.
The examiner alleges, "to provide the device of Arnett
with a ferroelectric layer from a ferroelectric metal oxide
layered superlattice material ... as taught by ... Paz de
Araujo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in this art because ... Paz de Araujo et al. disclose
ferroelectric metal oxide layered superlattice materials ...
to be highly compatible with conventional integrated circuit
materials and processes ...." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The
appellants argue, "[w]here high capacitance is an advantage to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007