Appeal No. 1998-0242
Application No. 08/295,593
Appealed claims 1, 4-7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Weigert. Claims 8-10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Weigert in view of Brierley.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that the prior art cited
by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejections.
The examiner cites Example 1 of Weigert for disclosing an
apparatus and method for forming metal oxide sputtering targets
wherein a graphite is employed which is lined with boron nitride
rather than appellants’ Al O . However, the examiner also cites2 3
Example 2 of Weigert for disclosing pressing powdered metal oxide
in a pressing can which is lined with Al O paper. Since2 3
reference Example 2 demonstrates that Al O does not react with2 3
indium oxide and tin oxide, the examiner concludes that it would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007