Appeal 2007-0488
Application 10/071,809
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 15, 21-23, 25, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enabling disclosure
(Supplemental Answer 2).
Appellant contends that Nojiri does not contain any examples of
etching a metal silicide layer employing an oxygen concentration above
25%, but only extrapolates the etch rate of WSix during etching employing
oxygen concentrations above 20% (Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that
the data (experimental values) in Nojiri is consistent with the claimed
process, and only the projection in Nojiri is inconsistent with the process as
claimed (Reply Br. 4). Appellant contends that there is no evidence, i.e.,
experimental results, inconsistent with the supporting disclosure, and thus no
reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of any statement in the supporting
disclosure (Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that Nojiri discloses an example of etching a
metal silicide layer where the etching stops at an oxygen concentration of
25%, and therefore Appellant’s Specification does not enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired result (Supplemental
Answer 2).
Accordingly, the issue in this appeal is as follows: does Nojiri present
sufficient evidence to doubt the truth or accuracy of any statement in
Appellant’s supporting disclosure on how to make and use the claimed
invention?
We determine that the evidence supplied by Nojiri is sufficient to
doubt the truth or accuracy of Appellant’s supporting disclosure. We also
determine that the evidence in Nojiri shows that the claimed objective
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013