Obviousness undone: no requisite reason
Therein, the appellants actually won on the point of obviousness:
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection does not provide the requisite reason, suggestion or incentive to combine the cited prior art, with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success, to arrive at the recitations of the pending claims (Reply Br. 3).
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ arguments of nonobviousness.
However, the Examiner has not satisfied the burden of establishing that Sasaki’s disclosure of a suitable “high temperature” and Fe/S flux ratio for vacuum deposition processes would have been reasonably applicable to other non-vacuum methods.
Previous IPBiz post:
Pouring molten pyrite?