Appeal No. 2005-1086 7
Application No. 09/032,305
ordinary skill in the art as indicated supra, is also closer to the claimed invention than the
one compared in the declaration. See In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1461, 223 USPQ
1260, 1263-64 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Appellants are require to compare the claimed invention
with more than one closest prior art if necessary).
In the third place, it cannot be ascertained from the showing in the declaration
whether the improved result is due to the types of oxidation agents used, the types of
oxidation conditions employed, the types of impurities or contaminants involved, the
treatment times used, or the claimed polishing-oxidation sequence as alleged. See In re
Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965)(“While we do not intend to
slight the alleged improvements, we do not feel it an unreasonable burden on appellants to
require comparative examples relied on for non-obviousness to be truly comparative. The
cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables.”). In
this regard, we note that the declaration is devoid of any details as how the wafers referred
to therein are actually treated. In other words, the declaration is silent with respect to the
types of conditions used, the types of treating agents employed, the types of cleaning
steps employed, the treatment times employed, etc.... Any of these factors could have
reduced additional defects in wafers.
Thus, having considered all of the arguments and evidence relied upon by the
examiner and the appellants, we determine that the evidence of obviousness, on balance,
outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness proffered by the appellants. Hence, we concur
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007