Appeal No. 2003-0543
Application 09/292,745
solder resist mask. While Shimazu discloses the use of a “copper
oxide” as a solder mask, we find no basis for the Examiner’s
assertion (Answer, page 8) that “copper oxide” is known to
include both brown oxide (cuprous oxide, Cu2O), which the Examiner
refers to as dicopper oxide, and black oxide (cupric oxide, CuO).
We agree with Appellant that, while dicopper oxide (Cu2O) may
identify brown oxide, the Examiner has provided no evidence to
support the conclusion that “copper oxide,” a term which refers
to the genus of the oxides of copper, would be recognized by a
skilled artisan as referring to the species of copper oxide known
as black oxide (CuO). “[T]he Board cannot simply reach
conclusions based on it own understanding or experience - or on
its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense.
Rather, the Board must point to some concrete evidence in the
record in support of these findings.” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), in which the court required evidence for the
determination of unpatentability by clarifying that the
principles of “common knowledge” and “common sense” may only be
applied to analysis of evidence, rather than be a substitute for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007