Ex Parte Madathil et al - Page 11

                 Appeal 2006-1260                                                                                     
                 Application 09/956,411                                                                               
                 0.3-5.0 nm, for the non-conducting . . . ‘buffer layer’ (see col. 3, lines 3-7)”                     
                 (Answer 9).  The Examiner also notes that “independent claim 17 does not                             
                 require a specific thickness for the buffer layer” (id.).                                            
                        Appellants disclose a buffer layer thickness “range of less than 10 nm                        
                 but greater than 0 nm” and a preferred buffer layer thickness range “of less                         
                 than 5 nm but greater than 0.5 nm” (Specification 10).  Appellants disclose                          
                 thickness ranges for the buffer layer encompass or substantially overlap the                         
                 broad thickness range of from 0.3 to 5.0 and the preferred thickness range of                        
                 0.5 to 1.0 nm disclosed by Hung for the non-conducting buffer layer (col. 3,                         
                 ll. 3-5).  We also note that Appellants and Hung disclose the use of heavy                           
                 alkali metal halides, such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride and                              
                 cesium fluoride, to form the non-conductive buffer layer (Specification para.                        
                 bridging 9 and 10; col. 2, ll. 55-57).  Since both Appellants and Hung                               
                 disclose the same material and the same thickness, there is reason to believe                        
                 that the non-conducting layer of Hung is effective to prevent at least some                          
                 degree of sputter damage as disclosed by Appellants.                                                 
                        In a situation where, as here, the claimed and prior art products appear                      
                 to be identical, the Patent and Trademark Office can require an applicant to                         
                 prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the                       
                 characteristics of his claimed product.  In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,                            
                 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).  Whether the rejection is based on                                    
                 “inherency” under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or on “prima facie obviousness” under                             
                 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and                      
                 its fairness is evidenced by the inability of the Patent and Trademark Office                        
                 to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.  Id.  On                        
                 the record of this appeal, Appellants’ § 1.132 affidavit contains no proof in                        

                                                         11                                                           

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013