Appeal No. 95-1555
Application 07/871,530
relation to said substrate overlying said substrate of said first
conductivity type” as recited in Appellants’ claim 10. Thus, we
find that Anderson does teach this limitation. However,
Appellants do argue on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that the
proposed combination of Tsuchiya and Anderson relied upon by the
Examiner for the purpose of the rejection of claims 10 through 15
is based upon directions from Appellants’ disclosure, rather than
suggestions contained in the references themselves. Thus, the
only question before us is whether there are reasonable teachings
or suggestions found in the prior art for modifying the Tsuchiya
integrated circuit device with a layer of semiconductor material
of said first conductivity type but of increased dopant
concentration in relation to said substrate overlying the
substrate of said first conductivity type as recited in
Appellants’ claim 10.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In
addition, the Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007