Appeal No. 1997-4235
Application No. 08/464,426
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“To imbue one of ordinary
skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when
no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest
that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught
is used against its teacher.”).
The examiner argues: “In addition, since Burton and
Purinton fail to disclose the proper etchant for their radome
manufacture, there would be a motivation to optimize for the
best etchant suitable for such manufacture.” (Answer, page 5.)
To support the optimization theory, the examiner refers to the
teachings of Missel. (Id.) What is missing, however, is any
evidence from the prior art to establish that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have optimized the fine-line circuit
elements in a radome having complex curvature to have the
recited tolerances. In this regard, the specification (pages 1-
2) states:
With a conventional etching process, like those using
ferric chloride, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to achieve line widths ranging from 3-10 ± 0.25 mils
(0.003 - 0.010 in) even on flat boards, because of the
etch rate and inherent process delays. Our
applications require this close tolerance on large
parts having complex curvature.
Nothing in the prior art suggests that the tolerances of the
line widths should be optimized to the recited specific values.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007