Appeal No. 2002-0453
Serial No. 08/686,229
etch-rate uniformity such that claim 12 would be supported by the
text of the patent” (page 2). The examiner does not address this
statement.
The references other than Schoenborn are relied upon by the
examiner for a suggestion to use the first derivative of
Schoenborn’s data, and not for any teaching that remedies the
above-discussed deficiency in Schoenborn.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007