Appeal No. 2006-3351
Application No. 10/011,882
to the trenches being at different depths, then such an
operation would be indicated in the specification. The
purpose of these trenches is the same as the claimed
invention, isolation to reduce losses to the substrate.
We find that the scope and content of the prior art,
and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
lead us to conclude that it would be obvious to etch
the two sets of trenches to the same depth. (See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
COMBINING THE ART
Appellants assert that the rejection of claims 1,
2 and 6 is improper because the combination of the
references, Johansson and Akram, was motivated by
hindsight (Reply Brief, page 7, bottom). More
specifically, “… one skilled in the art would not be
motivated to overcome the deficiencies of Johansson…
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013