Appeal No. 2005-0488
Application No. 09/851,274
substituent does not militate against the obviousness of
formulating the claimed resist material. It is not required for
a finding of obviousness that the motivation of one of ordinary
skill in the art be the same as appellants' motivation. In re
Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Appellants further contend that Examples 1-6 and Comparative
Examples 1-6 of the present specification are evidence of
nonobviousness. Appellants maintain that Comparative Example 6
illustrates "that a surfactant having a fluorine substituent
without an addition of the non-ionic surfactant results in a
large number of contaminants on the pattern surface and a large
number of liquid particles" (page 8 of Brief, first paragraph).
However, appellants point to no evidence that such a result would
be considered unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art,
particularly in light of the Kawabe teaching with respect to the
advantages of adding the specified non-ionic surfactants. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed.
Cir. 1986), In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16
(CCPA 1972). Comparative evidence must establish not only
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007