Ex Parte Gilbert et al - Page 10

                 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