Appeal No. 2002-1046
Application 08/861,831
the horizontal line being connected to the second main electrode
of the horizontal switch. Appellant points out that the Examiner
recognizes that Matsumoto does not teach or suggest Appellant’s
claimed FET structure. Appellant further argues that the Akimoto
fail to provide any reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in
the art would modify Matsumoto to obtain Appellant’s claimed FET
structure. See pages 9 and 10 of the Brief. Appellant further
buttress this argument in the reply brief. In particular,
Appellant points out that Cauge is directed to problems unrelated
to the problems found in the Matsumoto’s low voltage solid-state
imaging device. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant’s reply brief.
When determining obviousness, “[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching.” In re
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, citing McGinley v.
Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001,
1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “It must be based on objective evidence
of record.” Id. “Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
‘evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1617. “Mere denials and conclusory statements however, are not
sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007