Appeal No. 2003-1092
Application No. 09/692,730
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants
and by the Examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
As correctly indicated by the Appellants in their brief,
Kaisaki teaches using lysine in an ammonium ion buffer system
for controlling the pH of his slurry (e.g., see lines 40-62 in
column 14), whereas Grumbine teaches using lysine in his slurry for
inhibiting the etching or corrosion of tungsten (e.g., see lines 4-
24 in column 6). Clearly, the pH buffering purpose or function
served by lysine in Kaisaki’s slurry is completely unrelated to the
tungsten etch/corrosion inhibiting purpose or function served by
the lysine in Grumbine’s slurry. Because these purposes or
functions are unrelated, an artisan would have had no basis for
believing that the inhibiting-effective concentrations of Grumbine
would also be effective for achieving the tungsten etch/corrosion
inhibiting desideratum of Kaisaki. It follows that the here
applied references would not have provided either a motivation or
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007