Appeal No. 2003-0196
Application No. 08/601,258
to render such substitution obvious.” See In re Fout, 675 F.2d
297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
We determine that the Uriu reference does not “teach away”
from the proposed combination for the reasons set forth by the
examiner (Answer, page 6), namely it appears that the method of
depositing the platinum film does not affect the TCR but the post-
film formation heat treatment does adjust (raise) the TCR (see
Wienand, page 7, first full paragraph). Appellants have not
submitted any evidence to establish the criticality of the method
of forming the platinum film. The low TCR taught By Uriu is the
result of the lack of any heat treatment after the platinum film
has been deposited (id.).
Appellants argue that the examiner admits that Uriu does not
disclose a post-deposition annealing step and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have no motivation to substitute the deposition
process of Uriu for the evaporated/sputtered process used in
Wienand (Brief, page 5). This argument is not persuasive for
reasons stated above, namely that even though Uriu does not
disclose a post-deposition heat treatment, this reference teaches
the relative equivalency of plating and sintering methods for
depositing a platinum film in a temperature-measuring resistive
element. Wienand does teach a post-deposition heat treatment
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007