Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 such that if enhanced deposition rates for making silicon oxide films is the
2 objective, then one skilled in the art would use TEP.
3
4 Discussion
5 The obviousness analysis turns on whether one having ordinary skill
6 in the art would use TEP in a process for making a composition for the CVD
7 of a mixed tin oxide/silicon oxide film. We think one skilled in the art
8 would have done so.
9 When making a composition for use in the CVD process which
10 contains precursor of silicon oxide, one is explicitly taught by the prior art of
11 the advantage of also using TEP. One skilled in the art is also taught to use
12 a mixture of precursors of tin oxide and silicon oxide. On this record, we do
13 not see why one skilled in the art would not also use TEP when attempting
14 to make a composition with a mixture of a tin oxide precursor and a silicon
15 oxide precursor. There is no credible reason not to expect that the
16 advantages of enhanced deposition to be obtained by using TEP in a silicon
17 oxide precursor composition would not apply to using TEP in a mixed tin
18 oxide/silicon oxide precursor mixture if for no other reason than the mixture
19 also has a silicon oxide precursor.
20 Appellants’ "no motivation" argument misses the mark. First, we
21 will note that the word "motivation" does not appear in 35 U.S.C. § 103.
22 Second, to the extent that by "motivation" Appellants would require the
23 Examiner to come up with an explicit teaching in the prior art of motivation,
24 that requirement is foreclosed by binding precedent of our appellate
25 reviewing court. See, e.g., In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 851, 146 USPQ
26 183, 186 (CCPA 1965); for more recent discussion see also, e.g., Alza Corp.
27
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013