Appeal 2007-1095
Application 09/944,171
diagram. Therefore, we cannot agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Appellants contend that Jun does
not teach the claimed “the diode includes a PN junction diode formed by a
PN junction between a first source/drain and a substrate of a MOS.” The
Examiner maintains that the Examiner has interpreted the claim broadly and
that the PN junction and that the PN junction is in a location between the
source/drain and the substrate. We agree with the Examiner that the PN
junction is in the claimed location. Appellants may have intended that the
PN junction is formed with those recited elements, but the language is broad
enough to be reasonably interpreted as done by the Examiner. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 13 and dependent claims 12-17 included therewith by
Appellants.
35 U.S.C. § 103
At the outset, we note that to reach a proper conclusion under § 103,
the Examiner, as finder of fact, must step backward in time and into the
mind of a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time when the invention was
unknown, and just before it was made. In light of all the evidence, we
review the specific factual determinations of the Examiner to ascertain
whether the Examiner has convincingly established that the claimed
invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to
a person of ordinary skill in the art. When claim elements are found in more
than one prior art reference, the fact finder must determine “whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013