Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
cathode is sputtering (see col. 21, lines 50-52).
[Answer 3.]
Appellants argue that Aziz does not direct “a skilled artisan . . . to a
process which forms a heavy alkaline [sic, alkali] metal [halide] layer before
depositing a cathode using sputtering as the deposition method” (Br. 3).
Appellants further argue that “[e]ven if the choice of deposition method
were to be limited to those identified in Aziz as being 'preferred,' a skilled
artisan still would have to select one of three very different deposition
methods” (id.), and “[t]hen the artisan would have had to combine the use of
sputtering as the cathode deposition method with a step of forming a buffer
layer of a heavy alkaline [sic, alkali] metal [halide] layer before depositing
the cathode” (id.). Appellants additionally argue that “[t]he general
disclosure of Aziz . . . certainly does not direct the skilled artisan to this
combination, and there also is no disclosure in the examples of a buffer layer
of a heavy alkaline [sic, alkali] metal [halide] layer and the use of
sputtering” (id.).
The Examiner responds that “Aziz . . . discloses sputtering as a
preferred method for cathode deposition . . . with reasonable specificity for
an anticipation rejection” (Answer para. bridging 6 and 7) and “heavy
alkaline [sic, alkali] halide potassium chloride (KC1) with reasonable
specificity to anticipate claim 17” (Answer 7). We do not agree with the
Examiner’s contentions. Here, we find that a considerable amount of
picking, choosing, and combining within the disclosure of Aziz would be
necessary in order to arrive to Appellants’ claimed method. See In re
Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). As noted by
Appellants, a person with ordinary skill in the art must “pick and choose”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013