Appeal No. 2002-1701 Page 4
Application No. 09/076,111
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"said sublayer being one of (1) Ta that is not less than 0.2 nm thick and less than 1.0
nm thick. . . ." Independent claims 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, and 25 include similar limitations.
Accordingly, the limitations require that a Ta sublayer be less than 1.0 nm thick.
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "'A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell,
991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). "A reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007