Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
support of their argument that Hung’s buffer layer thicknesses are
“ineffective in reducing sputter damage” (Br. 7). It follows that this
argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the unsuitability of LiF “as buffer layer to protect against
sputter damage” (id.), Hung discloses not only lithium fluoride but also
expressly discloses the use of heavy alkali metal halides, potassium fluoride,
rubidium fluoride or cesium fluoride, to form the non-conductive buffer
layer in column 2, lines 49-57. (Answer 4). An obviousness conclusion is
supported by the fact that Hung discloses a number of the same heavy alkali
metal halides that Appellants disclose and claim as protecting against sputter
damage. On the other hand, this conclusion is in no way undermined by the
Brief and affidavit characterizations of LiF as unsuitable for protecting
against sputter damage.
Thus, having considered all of the evidence proffered by the Examiner
and Appellants, we find that the evidence of obviousness, on balance,
outweighs the evidence of unobviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, we agree with the
Examiner that the subject matter defined by claim 17 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17
and non-argued dependent claims 2, 7, 13, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hung.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013