Appeal No. 2000-1244
Application 08/826,111
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 20 and 22
through 32.
Appellants point out that each claim on appeal requires the
use of amorphous selenium in a partially reflective layer having
specified dimensions or a particular index of refraction, in
combination with a substrate, a spacer layer and a highly
reflective layer. Appellants argue that the cited references are
entirely vacant of any suggestion or motivation to combine the
various references, so as to use amorphous selenium in a
partially reflective layer. Appellants argue that the Examiner
cites no such suggestion or motivation, but simply uses the
application as a template to assemble the disparate prior art
elements. See page 6 of Appellants’ brief.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007