Appeal No. 2002-1415
Application No. 09/141,812
indication that Savas teaches a step “directed to clean a via,” we find no specific
teaching in Savas that any of the above-noted additives for mixing with oxygen are
suitable for treatment of a via following an etch. In our view, Savas provides evidence
that the artisan was familiar with use of the listed additives and with the particular
applications to which they were suited; i.e., the additives “may be selected depending
upon the composition of the resist and the etch process used.”
While we consider this to be a close case, we believe that the evidence relied
upon falls short of establishing prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention. In
light of the teachings of Molloy and Savas, it appears that no more than an “obvious to
try” standard has been met. See, e.g., In re Gieger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d
1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“At best, in view of these disclosures, one skilled in the art
might find it obvious to try various combinations of these known scale and corrosion
prevention agents. However, this is not the standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”).
We thus conclude that the rejection fails to meet the required evidentiary
standard (i.e., by a preponderance) in establishing facts necessary for the conclusion of
obviousness.
Further, neither Honda nor Chen, applied in combinations against dependent
claims, remedies the deficiencies of Molloy and Savas as applied against the
independent claims. We thus do not sustain the section 103 rejection of any of claims
1, 2, 4-12, 14, and 16-19.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007