Ex Parte Kamins et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2009

10690688 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THEODORE I. KAMINS
and PHILIP J. KUEKES
____________

Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,6881
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:2 June 11, 2009
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application 10/690,688, Method of Forming Three-Dimensional
Nanocrystal Array, filed 21 October 2003, which is said to be a
continuation-in-part of Application 10/281,678 filed 28 October 2002. The
specification is referred to as the “688 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.”
The real party in interest is listed as Hewlett Packard Development
Company, LP. (Appeal Brief, filed 30 October 2007 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

DECISION ON APPEAL
A. Introduction
Theodore I. Kamins and Philip J. Kuekes (“Kamins”) timely appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection3 of claims 1, 5-24,
and 28-40, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The subject matter on appeal relates to structures comprising
nanowires comprised of two materials embedded in a matrix, and methods
of making such structures, which are said to include quantum dots and
photonic bandgap crystals. The record indicates that such materials are
expected to have diverse practical applications in “nanotechnology,”
including nanoelectronics, optical communications, and sensors.
Representative Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Principal Brief on Appeal:
1. A method of controllably forming a three-dimensional
assembly of isolated nanowires, each nanowire comprising at
least two materials within a matrix of an other material, said
method comprising:
providing a substrate;
forming a two-dimensional catalyst array on a major
surface of said substrate;
controllably growing in a third dimension an array of said
nanowires corresponding with said catalyst array, said
nanowires each comprising said at least two materials;
and

3 Office action mailed 30 May 2007 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
2
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

forming the matrix of the other material that fills in
spaces between said nanowires.
(Claims App., Br. 18; paragraphing and indentation added.)
The claims described briefly below are representative of the groups of
claims that Kamins argues separately.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 via claims 5 and 6, and requires: that the
first and second materials that make up the nanowires be selected from the
same closed list of materials; that the first and second materials differ from
one another; and that the third material, which forms the matrix, can be the
same or different from either the first or second material. Claim 7 specifies
that the third material may also be selected from “oxides, nitrides, and
oxynitrides.” (Claims App., Br. 19.)
Independent claim 24, although not a product-by-process claim,
covers assemblies corresponding to products made by processes covered by
claims 1 and 5-7.
Independent claim 31 covers “[a] photonic bandgap structure
comprising an assembly of isolated nanowire segments of a first material
within a matrix of a second material.” (Claims App., Br. 25.)
Independent claim 33, although not a product-by-process claim,
covers a quantum dot structure corresponding to a structure made by the
process of claim 1 in which the matrix material may be the same or different
from the second material, but is different from the first material. (Claims
App., Br. 26.)
3
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

Independent claim 15 covers processes similar to those covered by
claim 1, but specifies that the nanowires are made of two materials that form
alternating regions. (Claims App., Br. 21-22.)
Claims 8 and 19 depend from independent claims 1 and 15,
respectively, and require that the step of forming the catalyst array comprise
transferring catalyst from protrusions on a mold to a major surface of the
substrate. (Claims App., Br. 19, 22-23.)
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and requires that the step of forming
the catalyst array comprises imprinting orthogonal lines of a material on a
catalyst layer and removing catalyst material by etching so that catalyst
remains only where protected by both imprints. (Claims App., Br. 19-20.)
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:4
A. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-18, 20-24, and 28-40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Li5
and Gudiksen.6
B. Claims 8, 9, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Li and Gudiksen.
In brief, Kamins’ principal objection (covering claims 1, 5, 6, 10-18,
20-24, 28, 29, 38, and 39) is that Li and Gudiksen are not combinable
because the 700 V/cm electric field taught by Li for aligning nanowires

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 29 January 2008. (“Ans.”). The Examiner
withdrew a rejection for lack of written description. (Ans. 2.)
5 Jun Li et al., Catalyst Patterning for Nanowire Devices, U.S. Patent
6,831,017 B1 (14 December 2004), based on an application
filed 5 April 2002.
6 Mark S. Gudiksen et al., Growth of Nanowire Superlattice Structures for
Nanoscale Photonics and Electronics, 415 Nature 617 (7 February 2002).
4
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

would be too small by a factor of more than 1000 to align the 20-nm
diameter two-component nanowires taught by Gudiksen. (Br. 9, relying in
part on the Kamins Declaration7). Kamins argues further that using
the 106 V/cm electric field necessary to align 20-nm diameter nanowires in
Li’s process would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
(Id. at 10.) Moreover, according to Kamins, the electric field alignment is
critical to Li’s method because Li does not teach growing vertically oriented
nanowires from a properly oriented single crystal substrate. (Br. 9.)
The Examiner maintains that the growth of alternating two-component
nanowires taught by Gudiksen is sufficiently similar to the growth of the
semiconductor nanowires taught by Li that the ordinary worker would have
been motivated to alternate the composition in the Li process. (FR 3,
Ans 3-4.) The Kamins Declaration is not persuasive, in the Examiner’s
view, because it lacks “factual evidence to support the conclusions set
forth.” (Ans. 5.)
The critical issue with respect to the main body of claims argued by
Kamins is whether Kamins has shown that there would have been no
reasonable expectation of successfully growing two-component
semiconductor nanotubes with a vertical orientation by the Li methods.
We shall set out the issues regarding the other separately argued
claims in the Discussion section infra.

7 Declaration Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, signed by Dr. Theodore I.
Kamins on 25 August 2006, of record. (“Kamins Declaration.”)
5
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

B. Findings of Fact (“FF”)
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
The 688 Specification
1. According to the 688 Specification, the invention is “directed to the
fabrication of a plurality of single material or segmented nanowires
embedded in a matrix.” (Spec. 2, ¶ [0003].)
2. The 688 Specification indicates that, conventionally, semiconductor
nanowires are synthesized by metal-catalyzed techniques, including
variations on the so-called vapor-liquid-solid (“VLS”) synthesis, in which
each wire grows from a single particle or liquid drop of gold or other metal
by growth in a furnace from a high-temperature gas. (Spec. 2, ¶ [0004].)
3. Silicon nanowires grown by this technique are said to be single-
crystalline, the diameter being controlled by the size of the catalytic particle.
(Spec. 2, ¶ [0005].)
4. Creation and patterning of nanometer-sized catalyst particles is said to
be non-trivial, but solved by the imprinting processes taught by the C-I-P
parent application, 10/281,678. (Spec. 2, ¶¶ [0005 and 0006].)
5. According to the 688 Specification, useful catalysts include metals
useful for catalyzing the growth of nanowires, such as gold. (Spec. 6,
¶ [0026].)
6. The 688 Specification teaches that gold is also a useful catalyst for
growing germanium (Ge) nanowires. (Spec. 6-7, ¶ [0026].)
6
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

7. In the words of the 688 Specification, referring to Figures 1b and 1c,
{Figure 1b (left) and Figure 1c (right) are shown below :}

{Figures 1b and 1c are said to show transfer of a catalyst to a substrate}8
“[t]he substrate 16 may comprise any material having a noncatalytic
surface 16a capable of accepting the catalytic nanoparticles [14] transferred
from the mold 10.” (Spec. 7, ¶ [0027]; emphasis added.)
8. As shown in Figures 1b and 1c, one method of transferring catalyst is
to first coat a catalyst-containing material 14 on protrusions 12 of a mold 10,
and then to transfer the catalyst-containing material 14 by physical contact
of the coated protrusions 12 with surface 16a of a substrate 16. (Spec. 6,
¶ [0024].)
9. Referring to Figure 2, which is reproduced on the following page,
the 688 Specification teaches that germanium nanowires 18 are grown by
introducing a gaseous source of germanium, such as germane (GeH4), to the
substrate bearing the catalyst particles. (Spec. 7, ¶ [0028]; emphasis added.)

8 The text in curly braces following the Figures is provided to ensure
compliance with § 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act for publication of this
Opinion on the USPTO website pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
It is not part of the Opinion.
7
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

{Figure 2 (lower) and Figure 2a (upper) are shown below :}

{Figures 2 and 2a are said to show the growth process of a nanowire}
10. As shown in Figure 2a, germane is transformed on the catalyst 14 to
germanium atoms, which diffuse through or around the catalyst to form the
growing nanowire 18: thus, the catalyst 14 remains on top of the nanowire.
(Spec. 7, ¶ [0028].)
11. According to the 688 Specification, “it will be readily appreciated
that by introducing one gas, e.g., germane, for a period of time and then
switching to a second gas, e.g., silane (SiH4) for a period of time and then
switching back, it is possible to grow nanowires having alternating regions
of the two compositions, Ge and Si.” (Spec. 7, ¶ [0029].)
12. The 688 Specification teaches that the spaces between the nanowires
can be filled by a third material (Spec. 8, ¶ [0033]), that may be selected on
the basis of its optical or electrical properties (id. at ¶ [0034]).
13. Specific examples of the third material are said to include oxides such
as silicon dioxide (SiO2) and polymers such as polydimethylsiloxane.
(Spec. 8, ¶ [0035].)
8
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

14. According to the 688 Specification, SiO2 is a preferred material due to
its transparency to ultraviolet radiation and consequent usefulness in
photonic band gap applications. (Spec. 8-9, ¶ [0035].)
15. One ideal embodiment described as being useful as a photonic
bandgap structure is said to comprise nanowires of alternating Ge and Si
surrounded by a matrix of Si, wherein the substrate, matrix, and Si segments
of the nanowire are each single crystal silicon, and the Ge segments are
single crystal germanium. (Spec. 9, ¶ [0036].)
16. The 688 Specification instructs that a three dimensional structure with
all dimensions less than a critical dimension (for Si and Ge, about 10 nm) is
commonly called a “quantum dot.” (Spec. 9, ¶ [0039].)
Li
17. Li describes ways to pattern catalyst sites from which nanowires are
grown, as well as the resulting nanowire arrays (Li, col. 1, ll. 33-35), which
may be provided with a layer of material to provide mechanical stability and
electrical insulation (Id. at col. 2, ll. 5-10.)
18. Li teaches further that the assemblies may be diced to provide a die
having a portion of the nanowire structure formed on the substrate, which
may be packaged and interconnected with circuitry and other devices. (Li,
col. 2, ll. 11-15.)
19. Figure 2d, which is reproduced on the following page, illustrates the
main features of the disclosed nanowire growth process.
20. Device 12 is formed using substrate 10, which may be silicon or other
wafers typically used in the semiconductor industry (Li, col. 3, ll. 62-66),
9
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

although “[a]ny suitable substrate material may be used if desired” (id.
at col. 4, ll. 3-4).
{Li Figure 2d is shown below :}

{Figure 2d is said to show nanowires embedded in a matrix}
21. Li teaches that optional electrode pads 14 may be formed on
substrate 10 to enable interconnects with nanowires and with circuitry on
other devices. (Li, col. 4, ll. 9-12.)
22. Catalyst sites 16 may be provided on the pads where ever needed for a
particular application. (Li, col. 4, ll. 52-55.)
23. Li teaches that the catalyst may be gold for catalyzing the growth of
semiconductor nanowires. (Li, col. 7, ll. 8-10.)
24. According to Li, nanowire diameters are typically on the order
of 10 nm to 100 nm, so the catalyst sites 16 typically have comparable
lateral dimensions, “although sites with other suitable dimensions
(e.g., 5-200 nm) may be used if desired.” (Li, col. 4, ll. 59-63.)
25. Li teaches that “[n]anowires 18 may be grown using any suitable
technique such as known thermal and plasma chemical vapor deposition
(CVD) techniques.” (Li, col. 5, ll. 10-12.)
26. In Li’s words, “During plasma CVD growth, the inherent electric field
produced by the plasma may help to vertically orient the nanowires 18 that
are grown.” (Li, col. 5, ll. 25-27; also see col. 6, ll. 20-28.)
10
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

27. According to Li, “[a] typical electric field strength that may be used to
enhance nanowire alignment may be on the order of 700 V/cm.” (Li, col. 5,
ll. 30-32; emphasis added.)
28. Li does not teach that the electric field is necessary for forming
vertically oriented nanowires.
29. Li teaches that after the nanowires have been grown, “an insulating
layer such as a silicon oxide layer may be deposited or grown on the
nanowires to form electrical insulation and to provide mechanical stability.”
(Li, col. 5, ll. 42-45.)
Gudiksen
30. Gudiksen describes the growth of “nanowire superlattices,” i.e.,
nanowires formed from two different materials, such as gallium
arsenide/gallium phosphide by laser assisted catalytic growth.
31. According to Gudiksen, “the nanowire axes [sic: axis] lies along
the <111> direction, in agreement with previous studies of single component
systems.” (Gudiksen, 617, col. 2, first full paragraph.)
32. Gudiksen describes wires having diameters of about 20 nm,
comparable to the ~20-nm diameter of the Au [gold] catalyst used.
(Gudiksen, 617, col. 2, second full paragraph.)
33. Gudiksen indicates that nanowires having a diameter of about 5 nm
could yield junctions with substantially reduced compositional variations,
which would be particularly useful in photonic and electronic applications
where abrupt interfaces are important. (Gudiksen, paragraph bridging
617-18.)
11
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

34. Gudiksen suggests that “[u]sing materials with a large dielectric
contrast might also enable the creation of one–dimensional waveguides with
built-in photonic bandgaps or of cavities for nanowire lasers.”
(Gudiksen, 619, col. 2.)
35. Gudiksen suggests further that “[b]y defining a quantum dot
heterostructure within a p-n diode during nanowire synthesis, it should be
possible to engineer an electrically driven single-photon source with well-
defined polarization. (Gudiksen, 620, col. 1, 2d full paragraph.)
C. Discussion
As the Appellant, Kamins bears the procedural burden of showing
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness”) (citation and internal quote omitted). Arguments
not timely filed have been waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), second
sentence.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-18, 20-24, 28, 29, 38, and 39
Kamins principal challenge to the Examiner’s rejection is, essentially,
that Li is not enabled for vertical semiconductor wires having a diameter on
the order of about 20 nm. Dr. Kamins testifies that the 700 V/cm field
taught by Li is sufficient to align carbon nanotubes having a diameter
of 1.4 nm. (Kamins Declaration 3, ¶ 15, citing Exhibit 1, Ural.9) Although

9 Ant Ural et al., Electric-Field-Aligned Growth of Single-Walled Carbon
Nanotubes on Surfaces, 81 Appl. Phys. Lett. 3464 (2002).
12
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

we have no reason to doubt this statement, we have not been placed in a
position to make the further finding of fact that the electric field required to
align a single-walled carbon nanotube, which is a cylinder a single atom
thick, is substantially the same as that required to align a solid
semiconductor wire. Nor have we been placed in a position to determine
that Li’s disclosure that a 700 V/cm field can be used to enhance
semiconductor nanowire alignment is incorrect as applied to nanowires
having diameters ranging from 10 to 100 μm. Our reviewing court has held
that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures of a patent are
presumptively valid. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d
1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). ("[W]e hold a presumption arises that both the
claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled.") Thus,
the burden is upon a party challenging the enablement of a patent to prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disclosure is not enabling.
Kamins has failed to come forward with credible evidence that Li’s
teachings regarding electric field alignment of 10 to 100 μm diameter
nanowires would have been dismissed as incorrect by persons having
ordinary skill in the art.
Dr. Kamins testifies further that “[t]he deflection of the nanowire in
an electric field decreases as the inverse fourth power of the diameter.”
(Kamins Declaration 3, ¶ 15.) Dr. Kamins does not, however, provide any
explanation of this statement, nor does he provide a citation to the technical
literature. Although we find Dr. Kamins’ professional credentials
impressive, we are unable to credit this unsupported assertion. Cf. Rohm
and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence
13
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert
witness.) Moreover, both Li and Gudiksen indicate that nanowires ranging
from diameters at least as small as 5 nm are contemplated. (Li, col. 4, l. 62;
Gudiksen, paragraph bridging 617-18.) Even if Dr. Kamins’ analysis is
correct, it does not account for the smaller diameter semiconductor
nanowires suggested by Li and Gudiksen.
Similarly, Kamins’ arguments that Li is not enabled for electric field-
free vertical growth of semiconductor nanowires because Li does not
disclose the use of a single crystal substrate oriented to expose the (111)
surface are unsupported by citations to credible evidence in the record. In
this regard, we find it striking that the 688 Specification does not appear to
disclose that a specially oriented single crystal substrate is necessary, or
even desirable, for obtaining vertically oriented nanowires. On the contrary,
the 688 Specification teaches that “[t]he substrate 16 may comprise any
material having a non-catalytic surface 16a capable of accepting the
catalytic nanoparticles transferred from the mold 10.” (Spec. 7, ¶ [0027];
emphasis added.) In summary Kamins has not provided any credible reason
to presume that the disclosed “any surface” is limited to single crystal (111)
surfaces, nor has Kamins explained why the metal electrode surface
provided by Li cannot accept a catalytic nanoparticle. Kamins’ remarks
concerning the oxide layer on the surfaces provided by Gudiksen appear to
be founded on similar considerations. For the foregoing reasons, we decline
to credit Kamins’ arguments regarding the alleged necessity of a (111)-
oriented single crystal substrate.
We conclude that Kamins has not demonstrated harmful error in the
Examiner’s determination that a person having ordinary skill in the art
14
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

would have expected that the structures taught by Li to be “grown using any
suitable technique such as known thermal and plasma chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) techniques” (Li, col. 5, ll. 10-12; FF 23), could also be
grown via the same catalyst by alternately introducing different gas sources
of semiconductors, as taught by Gudiksen.
Claims 7 and 30
Kamins argues that neither Li, which teaches amorphous matrix
materials, nor Gudiksen, which does not teach any matrix materials, teach or
suggest the materials recited for the matrix in claims 7 and 30, which are
said to be materials that form a crystalline matrix. (Br. 12.) This argument
is without merit, as Claims 7 and 30 recite that the matrix material may be,
in addition to the materials recited for the nanowire segments, “oxides,
nitrides, any oxynitrides.” (Claims App., Br. 19.) The 688 Specification
indicates that single crystal silicon is a preferred matrix (Spec. 9, ¶ [0036],
but the matrix is not limited to single crystal materials. Indeed,
the 688 Specification teaches that polydimethylsiloxane—a noncrystalline
polymer—is a suitable matrix material. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly
instructed that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the
claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we conclude that Kamins has not shown
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 30.
Claims 31, 32, and 40, and claims 33-37
Regarding claims 31, 32, and 40, which are drawn to a photonic
bandgap structure, and claims 33-37, which are drawn to a quantum dot
structure, Kamins “submits” that neither Li nor Gudiksen teaches or suggests
15
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

such structures. (Br. 13.) Kamins further submits, without elaboration, that
such structures would not have been obvious in view of these references.
(Id.)
We find Kamins’ first submission to be contradicted by Gudiksen,
which suggests that “[u]sing materials with a large dielectric contrast might
also enable the creation of one–dimensional waveguides with built-in
photonic bandgaps or of cavities for nanowire lasers.” (Gudiksen, 619,
col. 2.) Gudiksen suggests further that “[b]y defining a quantum dot
heterostructure within a p-n diode during nanowire synthesis, it should be
possible to engineer an electrically driven single-photon source with well-
defined polarization. (Gudiksen, 620, col. 1, 2d full paragraph.) On the
present record, it is clear that Gudiksen suggests both photonic bandgap
structures and quantum dot structures, and that they were widely recognized
targets of opportunity by those skilled in the relevant arts. Kamins’
unexplained assertions of nonobviousness are not persuasive of harmful
error in the Examiner’s rejection of the claims to these structures.
Claims 8 and 19: Catalyst Transfer, and Claim 9, Catalyst Patterning
Kamins argues that the absorbing catalyst template taught by Li as
being suitable for transferring catalyst ink to a substrate does not correspond
to the material described for the mold recited in claims 8 and 19. The mold
material, according to Kamins, is described in the 688 Specification,
paragraphs 0024 and 0025, as being a relatively hard material that is coated
with a material containing the desired catalyst. (Br. 14-15.) Thus, Kamins
argues, “[t]he characteristics of the template of Li contradict the
characteristics of the Appellants’ mold,” and the stated purpose of
16
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

transferring a catalyst would be destroyed if Li’s template could not absorb.
(Id. at 15.) Therefore, in Kamins’ view, coating a mold, as recited in
claims 8 and 19, would not have been an obvious variant of absorbing the
catalyst, as taught by Li. (Id.)
The Examiner responds that “[a] mold is used to make sure that the
catalyst is placed correctly and each time running the process, the same
place giving a uniform product. Thus, it is within the skill of the art to use
molds in order to increase the uniformity of the final product.” (FR 5;
Ans. 6-7)
Regarding the steps recited in claim 9 of imprinting two orthogonal
lines on top of catalyst material and removing catalyst material so it remains
only where it is protected by both imprints, Kamins argues that neither Li
nor Gudiksen teaches or suggests such steps. (Br. 15-16.) Such a process is
not, Kamins argues, the result of optimizing the lithographic and other
methods by Li. (Id. at 16.)
The Examiner responds that “[a]ppellants have not given any
evidence that this is not within the skill of the art,” and that ‘imprinting to
place a material in a set place is within the skill of the art in order that one
can reproduce the same array every time.” (Ans. 7.)
The Examiner has not cited any part of Li or Gudiksen that teaches
the particular steps recited in claims 8, 9, and 19. Nor has the Examiner
offered any rationale for modifying any teachings of either reference other
than “optimization” and the desirability of making reproducible patterns.
Such generalizations may be useful for placing a particular explanation of
obviousness in a larger context, but they do not satisfy the requirement of
17
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. This requirement is as much rooted in the
Administrative Procedure Act, which ensures due process and non-arbitrary
decisionmaking, as it is in § 103.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (citations omitted) (cited with approval, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The Examiner has failed to come forward with
credible evidence in support of the conclusion of obviousness. We decline
to scour the record in search of such evidence and evaluate whether that
evidence outweighs evidence of nonobviousness. Our principal function is
review, not examination in the first instance.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 19.
D. Order
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 10-18, 20-24, and 28-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Li and
Gudiksen.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Li and Gudiksen.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tc
18
Appeal 2009-001586
Application 10/690,688

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400

19