Appeal No. 2000-0770
Application No. 08/631,638
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner,
as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify
the capacitor structure disclosure of Robbins, which lacks an
explicit teaching of isolating the dielectric material from the
two electrodes of the capacitor structure. To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to Rostoker which discloses the
isolation of dielectric layers from electrode layers with
organic material. According to the Examiner, the skilled
artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to modify
Robbins to include the organic isolating layers of Rostoker “...
to improve the structure by providing the organic layer as
isolation.” (Answer, page 3).
In response, Appellant asserts several arguments in support
of their position that the Examiner has not established proper
motivation for the proposed combination of references so as to
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. After careful
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007