Appeal No. 2000-0770
Application No. 08/631,638
comes from an improper attempt to reconstruct Appellant’s
invention in hindsight.
We further find to be persuasive Appellant’s contention
(Brief, page 9) that the skilled artisan, seeking to improve the
capacitance characteristic of a capacitor structure with
relatively high dielectric materials such as in Robbins, would
unlikely be motivated to turn to the teachings of Rostoker. We
agree with Appellant that, in contrast to Robbins’ desire to
increase capacitance and provide a dielectric structure with an
increased dielectric constant, Rostoker’s disclosure is directed
to the lowering of capacitance in semiconductor wafer structures
by lowering the dielectric constant of insulating material
layers. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We are further of the opinion that even assuming, arguendo,
that proper motivation were established for the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Robbins and Rostoker, the resulting
structure would not meet the specific requirements of appealed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007