Appeal No. 1998-2045
Application 08/402,374
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 23-29 and 32
based on the teachings of Morozumi, Togashi and Asars. With
respect to independent claim 23, the examiner points to
Morozumi as teaching a transistor of the type claimed in which
it is desired to minimize leakage current. Specifically,
Figure 10 of Morozumi teaches the relationship between
transistor leakage current and the thickness of the channel
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007