Appeal No. 2001-1812
Application No. 08/854,008
substrate. There is nothing in either Asamaki or Posadowski
which reflects that the self-sputtering techniques thereof suffer
from any such problem involving “secondary electrons.” It
follows that no basis exists for combining the teachings of
Hazuki with the teachings of Asamaki and Posadowski.
In addition to the foregoing, we find nothing and the
examiner points to nothing in the applied prior art which would
have given an artisan a reasonable expectation that the
combination proposed by the examiner would have been successful.
For all we know, based on the applied reference evidence, the
primary reference feature of a biasable grid positioned between
the target and substrate would have been incompatible with the
secondary reference feature of a sustained self-sputtering
technique. That is, an artisan having read the applied
references might have as easily expected the presence of such a
grid to inhibit a self-sputtering operation rather than enhance
it as taught by the appellants. We here remind the examiner that
obviousness under section 103 requires not only a suggestion to
combine the applied reference teachings but also a reasonable
expectation that such a combination would be successful. See In
re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 UPSQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007