Appeal No. 2001-0107
Application No. 09/143,505
Indeed, Appellant argues that “it is clear that vaporized gaseous
byproducts could — and indeed would — travel by random motion
from the surface of the work product around the exposure mask and
condense on the chamber window.” (Reply Brief at 5.)
In view of our disposition of this appeal, we need not dwell
on Appellant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims,
save to observe that the Appellant urges that the examiner has
failed to support the rejections with teachings or suggestions in
the prior art.
2. Discussion
In any rejection for obviousness over prior art references,
the burden is on the examiner to demonstrate that the prior art
references teach, expressly or inherently, every limitation of
the claimed subject matter; and, when references must be
combined, that there is a reason, suggestion, teaching, or
motivation arising out of the references, such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined them in such a way
as to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d
488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover,
findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence in the
record. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344–45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1435
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The Board’s findings must extend to all
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007