Appeal No. 95-2454
Application No. 07/396,733
The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability. The examiner has not
made findings as to the differences between the Doo/Jones process and the claimed invention as required
by Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 18 (1966). Additionally, assuming the examiner is correct about
that the person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selective growth of an epitaxial layer
through an oxide mask and the sinking an oxide region into a single crystal layer by selective oxidation using
a silicon nitride mask are alternative procedures, we fail to see how this information would be used to
modify the Doo/Jones fabrication process to result in a process falling within the scope of applicant’s
claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6-9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25-32, 36-59
based on the combination including Doo, Jones, Clevenger, and Murphy.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25-28, 30, 31, 33-41, 48-52 and 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The rejections of claims 7-9, 29, 30, 32, 42-47, and 53-58 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007