Appeal No. 1996-4082
Application 08/179,238
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We agree with
appellant that the reasoning of the obviousness rejection (see Answer, page 5) took into account
knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, one would have to look to
applicant’s disclosure for direction to place the collector region under the etch stop layer. Only
appellant’s claims teach a collector region under an etch stop layer.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and the
references are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall reverse the standing rejection of claims 1 to 12
and 18 to 32 on appeal.
REVERSED
EROLL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007