Appeal No. 1999-0542
Application 08/760,557
Each of the independent claims recites these four features in
some form. It is basically appellants’ position that
regardless of whether the applied prior art suggests a multi-
layer metalization made up of the specific claimed components
[they argue it does not], there is no teaching or suggestion
in the applied prior art that the four features noted above be
present.
The examiner’s findings with respect to these four
features basically rely on a belief by the examiner that these
four features are either necessarily or inherently present in
the multi-layer metalizations of the prior art or would have
been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants dispute these findings and argue that there is no
teaching or suggestion within the applied prior art of these
claimed features. We agree with appellants’ arguments for
essentially the reasons set forth in the appeal brief.
The evidence on this record does not establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The four features of the claimed
invention noted above are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art. Appellants’ specification notes that a
layer having a high resistance can result from forming a
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007