Appeal No. 2002-0974
Application 09/332,745
:m on a silicon wafer. Claim 28 is not limited to any particular
epitaxial layer but is directed to "an epitaxial layer."
Similarly, at pages 15 and 16 of their brief appellants
recite the various limitations in claim 34 (epitaxial layer
thickness, heating and cooling, surface condition of the wafer,
etcetera) and then proclaim that the office has not made out a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter claimed in claim 34. We find appellants' "argument" lacks
adequate specificity to establish what constitutes the error in
the proffered rejection. Suffice it to say that, for reasons
expressed fully above, we find the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of
claim 34.
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed subject
matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants' rebuttal
evidence, if any, and to reconsider the prima facie case anew in
light of all the evidence. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, appellants have
neither presented any rebuttal evidence nor advanced any
arguments with respect to any probative showing of surprising or
unexpected results represented by objective evidence in this
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007