Appeal No. 2005-0453 Page 8
Application No. 09/893,866
inclusion is for the same function as disclosed by Appellant, i.e., to enhance crystallization of the
silicon film. That Zhang does not explicitly disclose the concentration level in the target is of
no matter because Zhang teaches the general conditions of the process for the same result as
Appellant. In this situation, those of ordinary skill in the art would have performed routine
experimentation to find the optimal concentration in the target that would result in the optimal
film concentration for the crystallization effect desired in the film. Further, there is no per se
requirement that the reference articulate a numerical range for the variable at issue. See In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Each case should be decided on its
own facts.
Where, as here, the prior art acknowledges that the variable has effects, there is
motivation to conduct routine experimentation to optimize those effects to get the expected
benefits. There is also a reasonable expectation of success based on the known relationship
between the variable and the expected effect. It is true that a routine variable change sometimes
causes an unexpected effect. In such a situation, the claimed subject matter will be unobvious
under the law if Appellant provides evidence of an unexpected beneficial result. See In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). Note also Aller, 220 F.2d at 456,
105 USPQ at 235. No such evidence has been presented here. Appellant directs us to page 8,
lines 5-15 (Brief, p. 8), a discussion of sputtering yield, but there is no discussion there of an
unexpected result.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007