Ex Parte Ohmori - Page 18



               Appeal No. 2005-2100                                                                                                
               Application No. 09/826,038                                                                                                                  

                       Because Funk does not provide the requisite suggestion to arrange the process                               
               steps in the manner necessary to arrive at Appellant’s claimed invention the examiner                               
               failed to meet his burden4 of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.5  If the                              
               examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be                               
               overturned.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                 
               For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that the rejection of claim 6 under 35                                  
               U.S.C. § 103 over Funk is in error and should be reversed.                                                          
                       Apparently recognizing that the rejection of record cannot be sustained the                                 
               majority reaches outside of the record presented for our review to prop up the                                      
               examiner’s rejection with two new pieces of evidence.  The majority relies on the Kirk                              
               Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Encyclopedia), to teach that wet                                       
               etching and dry etching are known to those of ordinary skill in the art and that “one                               
               advantage of wet etching over dry etching is the absence of subsurface damage that is                               
               common with dry etching.”  Supra page 7.  As I understand the record before us for                                  
               review, I do not believe there is any dispute that wet etching and dry etching were                                 
                                                                                                                                  
               4 “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of                              
               presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.”  In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28                              
               USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).                                                                                 
               5 I recognize the majority’s assertion that “an ‘advantage’ is not evidence of                                      
               unexpectedly superior results which is required to rebut a prima facie case.”  Supra                                
               page 9, n. 2.  In my opinion, this assertion puts the cart before the horse.  Secondary                             
               considerations of non-obviousness are not at issue until the examiner first makes out a                             
               prima facie case of obviousness.  Since the examiner has not provided the evidence                                  
               necessary to establish a prima facie case of obviousness we need not look to any                                    
               secondary considerations of non-obviousness.                                                                        
                                                                  18                                                               




Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007