Appeal No. 2000-1042
Application No. 08/986,449
(brief, page 15). In searching the answer for a response to this
argument, we find nothing even relevant to this claimed feature
except a single remark by the examiner on page 9 of the answer,
namely, that “[t]he moving plasma source, e.g. the ‘plasma gun’
is not believed to be invented by the appellant[s].” This
utterly speculative remark provides absolutely no support for the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. On the record of this
appeal, the examiner has not even proffered evidence that the
claimed feature in question was known in the prior art much less
that it would have been obvious to combine this feature with the
prior art ion implantation method disclosed in column 1 of
Cabrera in such a manner as to result in the here claimed method.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain any of the
section 103 rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007