Appeal No. 95-2859
Application 08/118,109
Applying the masking procedure of Morris to the prior art
acknowledged by the appellant would not result in the claimed
invention, because of the different manner in which the mask is
employed in Morris and in the admitted prior art. Moreover,
because of the difference in application, one with ordinary skill
in the art would have no reasonable motivation to simply replace
the oxide mask of the admitted prior art with the polysilicon
mask disclosed in Morris.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the appellant’s own admitted prior art in view of Morris.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the appellant’s own admitted prior art of
Figures 1-3 in view of Morris is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007