Appeal No. 1997-1249
Application 08/179,601
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing
W. L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553,
220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
The Examiner cites Biefeld (Figures 5 and 6), Doehler
(Figure 4) and Capasso (Figure 1) as redundantly teaching
“contacts” (answer-page 4). However, Appellant’s disclosed
contacts are not even recited in the claims.
Appellant notes that Danos “is the one reference directed
to general radiation detection.” (Brief-page 12.) Appellant
contends that his claims distinguish over Danos “by the fact
that the conductive layers [of Appellant] are coextensive with
the intrinsic region so as to extend to the edge . . . . In
Danos in contrast, the conductive layers 5 in Fig. 2, are
neither coextensive nor do they extend to the edges.” (Brief-
pages 12 and 13.) However, we note that in Figure 2 (as well
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007