Appeal No. 2000-1004
Application 08/743,628
not establish the significance of this layer with respect to silicon transport and the SiON
antireflective layer 10.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have combined the teachings of Abernathey and Tsukamoto with respect to the
antireflective layer. It is well settled that the examiner must point to some teaching, suggestion
or motivation in the prior art to support the combination of references, and thus we reverse this
ground of rejection. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir.
2002); Smith Industries medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51
USPQ2d 1415, 1420-21 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d
1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577,
221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007