Appeal No. 2005-2100
Application No. 09/826,038
etching steps”, the majority fails to explain how these uncharacterized etching steps
together with a feed-back technique would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to
Appellant’s claimed invention either alone or in combination with Funk, when none of
this evidence suggests that a dry etching step be performed prior to a wet etching step
as is required by Appellant’s claimed invention. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006), citations omitted.
For the foregoing reasons I disagree with the majority opinion. Therefore, I
dissent.
BAF/DEA/hh
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3096
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007