Appeal 2007-0378
Application 10/212,895
Regarding the claimed pressure range, Appellants have provided no concrete
evidence establishing that the prior art pressure or temperature ranges would
be incapable of achieving the unexpected result – forming an upper electrode
in contact with the paraelectric layer. Regarding the temperature range,
although Appellants point out the criticality of a processing temperature
below 600°C – the claimed range nevertheless overlaps the prior art range
between 450°C and 600°C .
In short, Appellants have simply not rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for the temperature and pressure ranges claimed in
claims 3-5 and 12-14. Nor have Appellants rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the surface roughness and thickness
ranges claimed in claims 8, 9, 18, and 19. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-5, 8, 9, 12-14, 18, and 19 is sustained. Moreover, since
Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of dependent claims
2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 with particularity, these claims fall with
independent claims 1 and 11. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013