Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
the Examiner’s rejection relies on arguments made previously alleging the
failure of Basceri to disclose the claimed preheating step, which argument
we found to be without merit as discussed supra. We also find no error in
the Examiner’s finding (Answer 18) of obviousness to the ordinarily skilled
artisan of adjusting the doping of the PZT film with up to 5% La, especially
in view of the fact that Appellants’ Specification discloses no criticality in
the 5% figure, or that such a dopant concentration produces any unexpected
or novel results.
Similarly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 83 based on Gilbert is also sustained since Appellants’ disclosure
provides no indication of any criticality of the claimed 20% Argon
component of the inert/oxidizer gas mixture. As pointed out by the
Examiner (Answer 19), Appellants’ Specification (5, ll. 7-10) belies the
criticality of the Argon component since the use of other inert gases, or no
gas at all, during the preheating step is suggested.
We further sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 86 and 92 based on the combination of Gilbert and
Sakurai. To whatever extent Appellants are suggesting (Br. 43-46) that the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Gilbert and Sakurai must fail since, in
Appellants’ view, Sakurai does not disclose a preheating step in a PZT film
deposition process, we find such contention to be without merit since the
Examiner has relied upon Gilbert for this teaching. It is apparent from the
Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer that the basis for the
obviousness rejection is the combination of Gilbert and Sakurai. As pointed
out by the Examiner (Answer 19), one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013