Appeal No. 2006-0783
Application No. 10/396,164
products (i.e., etchant mixtures) or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The § 103 rejection
In view of the above discussion, we shall likewise sustain the examiner’s § 103
alternative rejection over Pu since a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also
renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir.
1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
While we find that Pu anticipates and hence renders the claimed process prima
facie obvious for the reasons outlined above, we further determine that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to the claimed process by simply following the
teachings of Pu to employ C2H4F2 as a fluorocarbon etchant to etch a dielectric layer with
selectivity over an underlying layer or substrate. The advantages for using a fluorocarbon
etchant to etch a doped silicon dioxide are disclosed by Pu. Just as unexpected results can
be persuasive of the non-obviousness of claimed subject matter, expected results, as here
obtained, evidence the obviousness of the subject matter before us in this appeal.
Appellants’ position regarding claims 11 to14 has been noted. The identification
of the scope of protection sought by a particular claim is not a separate argument for
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007