Appeal No. 2000-1702
Application No. 08/841,908
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:
Hochberg et al. (Hochberg) 4,992,306 Feb. 12, 1991
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 5,356,722 Oct. 18, 1994
THE REJECTION
Claims 2, 4 through 7, 9, 10 18, 20 through 23, 25 and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Hochberg.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of each of the claims are not
well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
The Rejection Under § 103(a)
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is the examiner’s position that, “given the disclosure in Hochberg et al. That glass
films deposited from TEOS and oxygen under plasma conditions at about 350oC are not
pure silicon dioxide and contain carbonaceous impurities and that it is conventional in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007