Appeal No. 2001-0046
Application 08/971,014
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner
acknowledges that “Sekiguchi does not teach the bottom of the
conductive layer of the capacitor formed on one dielectric layer
while the vertical upper portion[s] are formed on another
dielectric” and asserts that Takaishi teaches the missing feature
(answer, page 4). The Examiner further compares the claimed
cavity shape to the opening shown in figure 4D of Takaishi having
a horizontal bottom surface on layer 8 with an upper portion
having vertical sides formed by layer 21 and concludes that the
combination of the two references teaches the claimed method
(id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of obvious-
ness under § 103, consistent with the holding in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), the examiner
must produce a factual basis supported by a teaching in a prior
art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in
order to establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007