Appeal No. 2001-1193
Application No. 08/463,761
was involved (it works because the two different valence
electronic states for the metal), and that hydrogen
terminated silicon was used instead of the disclosed silicon
dioxide because the two are well recognized equivalents
(reply brief at page 4).
Comparing the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we are persuaded by Appellants’ assertions, largely based on
the actual results obtained by the declarant by making a
device made according to the disclosure of Appellants. On
the other hand, the Examiner has presented no factual
evidence to contest the actual measurements which are
presented by the declarant, and is indulging only in sheer
speculation based on the literature, especially the Eigler
article published in Nature (answer at page 4). Keeping
in mind the absence of any facilities in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office to test out any device, we are
constrained to give full faith and credit to the declarations
and the statements made therein by the declarant that the
device tested in the declarant’s laboratory was made
according to the disclosure of Appellants, and that the
laboratory results are indeed the actual results. We have no
means to contest or verify such experimental results.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007