Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
617 F.2d 272, 278, 205 USPQ 215, 220-221 (CCPA 1980); In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
Because the scope of the unexpected results evidence proffered by
the appellants is considerably more narrow than the scope of
appealed independent claim 6, this evidence is insufficient to
rebut or outweigh the prima facie case of obviousness established
by the reference evidence supplied by the examiner.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claims 6-8 and 10-12 as being
unpatentable over Schwalm ‘265 as well as the uncontested section
103 rejection of claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over this
reference and further in view of Yamada.
The section 103 rejections based on Nguyen-Kim
We agree with the examiner’s basic position that it would
have been prima facie obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill
to replace the sulfonium salts in the resist materials of Nguyen-
Kim with the mono or di sulfonium salts encompassed by the
general formula of Schwalm ‘037, thereby resulting in a resist
material containing onium salts of the type defined by the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007