Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 564-65, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, in view of our claim construction, we determine that
Pessa does not disclose or suggest the functional language in
question.
We additionally note that claim 1 on appeal requires
“substantially preventing” the formation of dislocation defects
while Pessa desires the creation of “mismatch dislocations,”
although reducing the disadvantageous threading dislocations
(Pessa, col. 1, ll. 39-49, and col. 2, ll. 35-42). The examiner
has not established why this limitation would have been disclosed
or suggested by Pessa or any other applied reference.
As discussed above, the secondary references applied by the
examiner do not remedy the deficiency in Pessa. Accordingly, we
determine that the examiner has not established that all the
limitations of claim 1 on appeal are taught by the combination of
references, and thus prima facie obviousness has not been
established. Therefore we cannot sustain any of the rejections
on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007