Appeal No. 2001-2182 9
Application No. 08/948,895
amorphous fluorinated carbon dielectric layer. Furthermore, it has not been shown that
the two layers would adhere to each other or be compatible with each other.
Finally, we conclude that the present combination of three to five references each
of which discloses either a single element or at most two elements of the claimed subject
matter constitutes a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, particularly in view
of the multi-substitutions required to obtain the claimed subject matter. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[T]he
best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness
analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or
motivation to combine prior art references.").
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 6 is not sustained.
Furthermore, in light of our reversal of claims 1 and 6, the sole independent claims before
us, we need not discuss the balance of the rejections of record. A discussion of GB’345
and Endo is not needed in reaching our decision as each of the references are directed
exclusively to features which appear only in dependent claims and in any event do not
remedy the deficiency of the other references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007