Appeal No. 2006-2922 Page 11
Application No. 10/012,677
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we agree with
appellants that the combination proffered by the examiner fails to fairly
teach or suggest a two-source evaporative system that utilizes aluminum
oxide and silicon monoxide, as claimed. We acknowledge that Vossen
discloses co-evaporation using multiple sources [p. 110]. However, we find
no evidence of record to support the examiner’s assertion that the “choice of
SiO and Al2O3 sources are well known” and therefore would have been an
obvious “design choice” to an artisan [see answer, page 6].
We further agree with appellants that the recited limitation of “forming
the mixture … without flowing O2 into the chamber” is not fairly disclosed nor
suggested by the prior art. In contrast, we find that Lee teaches away from
the instant claimed invention by explicitly disclosing the formation of an
aluminum oxide film in an argon/oxygen atmosphere [col. 5, lines 59-61].
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, … would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich.
Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We
note that our reviewing court has reaffirmed that “[a] prima facie case of
obviousness can be rebutted if the applicant … can show ‘that the art in any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007