Appeal No. 2005-1894
Application No. 10/209,004
The appellant argues that Sandhu would not have suggested
eliminating surface roughness or sharp corners on a platinum
electrode to provide a smooth topology (brief, page 6; reply
brief, page 3). That argument is not well taken because the
appellants are attacking the reference individually when the
rejection is based upon a combination of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re
Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
Hosaka is relied upon by the examiner for a suggestion to dry
etch and then wet etch Sandhu’s lower electrode to remove surface
roughness and distortions and to form the lower electrode into a
nodular shape by rounding the corner portions of the lower
electrode’s side surface (answer, page 4).
The appellant argues that neither Sandhu nor Hosaka
discloses a desire to reduce current leakage (brief, pages 6-7;
reply brief, page 2). To establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, references need not be combined for the purpose of
solving the problem solved by the appellants. See In re Kemps,
97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991); In
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007