Appeal No. 1997-0601
Application 08/161,878
Appellants argue [brief, pages 13 to 15] that Ohta shows
different size shorts only for a two terminal device.
Appellants further argue [id. 13] that “[t]he three terminal
embodiment disclosed in Ohta is not shown to have different
size shorts in different regions.” The Examiner counters
[answer, page 9] that “t]he brief’s argument is little more
than an assertion of bare novelty, which does not address the
issue here, one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Clearly
the teachings by Ohta, with regard to Fig. 2 (discussed at the
top of col. 8 of Ohta), would have provided ample motivation
to similarly employ different sized holes in three-terminal
structures[,] otherwise of similar construction, as in Fig. 5
of Ohta, for similar assymmetric [sic] characteristics.”
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. It is true
that Ohta only shows a two terminal device which can have
different size shorts, and further shows a three terminal
device having only the same size shorts. However, Ohta does
disclose the desirability of providing the two terminal device
with different size shorts [column 8, lines 1 to 31]. We find
that the same desirability of having an asymmetric current
flow in different regions in case of a two terminal device
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007