Appeal No. 2005-2150
Application No. 10/407,084
system for use with a plurality of facilities, rather than use in a single facility. In
particular, Burdick teaches in column 1 that the manufacture of semiconductor devices
requires a number of discrete process steps that are sufficiently different from one
another, and specialized, that the processes may be performed in different facilities in
remote regions of the globe. Burdick provides an example of labor-intensive steps that
may be performed, preferably, in a region having cheaper labor rates.
Appellants seem to argue that the rejection is unfounded because Martin
contains no indication that Martin contemplated more than a single microelectronic
fabrication facility. (Brief at 7-8.) We do not find the position to be persuasive, as it is
not responsive to the rejection that has been applied. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants also seem to allege or suggest that Martin’s processes are not
amenable to being performed in separate facilities. However, Martin discloses discrete
work centers that comprise the manufacturing line (e.g., Figs. 2A and 2C). We do not
find any reason in the reference why the teachings of Burdick could not apply to Martin’s
system. More important, appellants do not point out any teachings in Martin that might
support the assertion.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007