Appeal No. 2006-3405
Application No. 10/631,858
(2) how to avoid the drawbacks known to be associated with the use of masks
during the etching process.
Thus, while the rejection at best shows that Nakamura could be modified in
accordance with the requirements of instant claim 1, the rejection fails to show
why the prior art would have suggested that the artisan do so. Prior art references
in combination do not make an invention obvious unless something in the prior art
would suggest the advantage to be derived from combining their teachings. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995-96, 217 USPQ 1, 6-7 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the
rejection seems based on assumptions of what might happen if certain events were
to occur.
The remainder of the references applied in combination against the claims
depending from claim 1 do not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection applied
against the independent claim. We thus do not sustain the rejection of any of the
claims on appeal.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013