Appeal No. 2003-0173
Application No. 09/484,473
Roh discloses that PLZT, (Ba,Sr)TiO3 and SrTiO3 films are
high dielectric films (col. 5, lines 4-7 and 61-63).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Roh’s (Ba,Sr)TiO3 or
SrTiO3 for Asselanis’ PLZT because Roh teaches that PLZT,
(Ba,Sr)TiO3 and SrTiO3 are equivalent titanium oxide materials
(answer, page 4). The appellants argue that Roh’s teaching is
that these materials are electrically equivalent, not chemically
equivalent, and that Roh does not indicate that (Ba,Sr)TiO3 or
SrTiO3 would react chemically to an etchant of HCl/NH4F/H2O
similarly to a PLZT material (brief, page 5). The examiner
responds that the appellants have failed to show that these
materials are not chemically equivalent (answer, page 6).3
The examiner’s argument is not well taken because the
initial burden with respect to prima facie obviousness lies with
the examiner rather than with the appellants. See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
3 The examiner points out (answer, page 5) that Roh teaches
that PLZT, (Ba,Sr)TiO3 and SrTiO3 tend to have an active chemical
reaction with silicon or polysilicon (col. 1, lines 47-50). The
relevance of this argument is not apparent because the issue is
whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to react HCl/NH4F, not silicon or polysilicon, with
(Ba,Sr)TiO3 or SrTiO3.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007