Appeal No. 2006-2922 Page 9
Application No. 10/012,677
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 12]. The examiner essentially
argues that a two-source evaporative system that utilizes aluminum oxide
and silicon monoxide would have been obvious because “one skilled in the
art would recognize that any listed source could be combined with any other
listed source to form a compatible compound” [answer, page 13, ¶4, cont’d
page 14, ¶1]. The examiner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that “if there is sufficient oxygen in the chamber (for
any compound formation) additional oxygen would not be supplied” [answer,
page 15, ¶2]. With respect to the recited limitation of controlling the
amount of silicon present by controlling the evaporation rate of silicon
monoxide, the examiner asserts that Vossen’s disclosure is “directed toward
each and every material listed within the tables as well as any non-listed
material that can be used as a target” [answer, page 16, ¶2].
In the reply brief, appellants note that Vossen’s disclosure in Table II
(pages 108 and 109) does not disclose any two-source system that utilizes
an aluminum oxide-comprising source or forms an aluminum oxide-
comprising film [reply brief, page 2, ¶3].
At the outset, we note that to reach a proper conclusion under §103,
the examiner, as finder of fact, must step backward in time and into the
mind of a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time when the invention was
unknown, and just before it was made. In light of all the evidence, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007