Appeal No. 2005-0776
Application No. 09/898,321
and Fukuda] in order to reduce the capacitance between the lines
as taught by Ahn in column 3, lines 23-26” (answer, pages
5 and 8).
For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976). The mere fact that the prior art could be modified as
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner has not taken into account the differences in
the thin film devices of Kingsley and Fukuda and the
semiconductor interconnect structure of Ahn and provided evidence
or technical reasoning which shows that, regardless of those
differences, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
by the references themselves to use Ahn’s disclosure to modify
the devices of Kingsley and Fukuda as proposed by the examiner.
The examiner’s mere assertion to that effect is not sufficient
for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner argues that “[w]hile the manufacturing process
of Ahn would have to be modified in order to only use an air-gap
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007