Appeal No. 2001-0777
Application No. 09/652,893 Page 7
discussed therein. Nor has the examiner explained how the
product of the Japanese patent abstract of 58-151517 and Yoshii
alone or in combination with the other applied references would
have rendered the products of appealed claims 24-26 prima facie
obvious. As for claim 22, the examiner has not established how
the teachings of Umemura would have cured the deficiencies of the
other applied references.
The examiner’s opinion that greater throughput possibilities
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the
large electron beam apparatus of Livesay in the annealing method
steps of the Japanese patent abstract of 58-151517 and Yoshii is
not sufficient without any particularized consideration of the
effect of the use of such an apparatus on the special problems
that Yoshii was addressing. In this regard, the examiner has not
established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected such a proposed modification of Yoshii and the Japanese
patent abstract of 58-151517 to be attended by a reasonable
expectation of success. Consequently, on this record, we are
constrained to reverse the stated rejections.
OTHER ISSUES
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007