Appeal No. 2002-0465
Application No. 09/432,610 Page 5
out a prima facie case of obviousness. While Jones is at least
concerned with treating graphite to form a cone-shaped micro-
structure via electronically-excited gas-graphite oxidation
reactions and Brown suggests that modeling (Monte Carlo
simulation) predicts that equilateral hexagonal etch pits may be
formed during carbon oxidation of thin graphite slices assuming
etch pit sides burn sequentially, the examiner simply has not
established how the combination of Jones and Brown teach or
suggest the here claimed patterning method. In this regard, the
examiner’s comments (answer, pages 3 and 4) regarding responsible
experiments and the obviousness of creating “holes in the same
shape and location claimed in the process of Jones. . .” (Answer,
page 4) says little, if anything, as to how one of ordinary skill
in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention from the
actual teachings of each of the applied references alone or in
combination. On this record, we will not sustain the rejections
as stated by the examiner.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 28, 29 and 32-
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007