Appeal No. 2000-1587
Application 09/055,254
produce factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-
72 (CCPA 1966).
Appellants argue that the Wolf references do not suggest
modifying the process of Zheng to have a step of low-
temperature baking for the SOG followed by a partial etch back
and curing of the SOG. In particular, Appellants assert that
Wolf has nothing to do with a partial etch back and does not
teach the desirability of modifying the process of Zheng
(brief, page 4 and reply brief, page 3). Furthermore,
Appellants argue that the Examiner mischaracterizes Zheng’s
etching selectivity of SOG to the plasma oxide being 1:1 (col.
3, lines 16-18) as the claimed etching back of SOG with an
etch rate higher to silicon oxide than SOG (brief, page 5 and
reply brief, page 2). Appellants also indicate Zheng and
other prior art references fail to teach or suggest the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007