Appeal No. 2005-0579
Application No. 09/887,910
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). In the
present case, however, appellants have not submitted any rebuttal
to the examiner's rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated by the teachings of Aronowitz to modify
the process of Goeckner in order to form an implanted gate
dielectric layer. Neither appellants' counsel nor the affiant
explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
the teachings of Aronowitz applicable to the apparatus of
Goeckner. Nor does the affiant even state that he and his co-
inventor were even aware of the Aronowitz disclosure.
Furthermore, the affiant's belief that a person employed by
Varian would not have been able to modify the prior art to result
in the present invention is of little probative value in the
absence of evidence that such a Varian employee was aware of the
Aronowitz disclosure. Consequently, inasmuch as appellants have
not addressed the combined prior art as a whole, as required, the
prima facie case established by the examiner has not been
rebutted.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007