Appeal No. 1999-1942
Application 08/770,037
(EA9-10), have not provided reasons why the results are
unexpected (EA10; EA11) or shown that the experiments are
repeatable (EA10-11), and that "[t]here is not enough data,
and no statistical analysis, provided so that the Examiner can
extrapolate what the results would look like if only one
oxide-filled layer and one oxide-free layer [were provided]"
(EA11). We generally agree with Appellants' response
(RBr6-10). The tests results speak for themselves and cannot
be ignored because reasons can be thought of why the results
could be more complete.
Thus, even if the combination of references did establish
a prima facie case of obviousness, it would be rebutted by
this objective evidence of nonobviousness.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-16, 19, and 20 are reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007