Appeal No. 96-3296
Application 08/145,267
In our view, the examiner simply has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter.
The examiner contends [answer, page 3] that Tanoue
teaches a field effect transistor integrated with a Resonant
Tunneling Diode (RTD) and appellant does not deny it. The
examiner then contends that Iwamatsu and Suematsu suggest the
practice of a circuit as in Tanoue with silicon semiconductor
based material rather than III-V material "because silicon
material is standard in the industry and forms a good oxide for
insulation purposes, and is also shown to be useful for tunneling
and field effect transistor devices." However, it is unclear to
us what portions of Iwamatsu and Suematsu are being relied on by
the examiner for such teachings. The examiner has failed to
identify the particular portions of the references on which he
relies and it appears to us that the examiner's rationale may, in
reality, be based improperly on what is taught by appellant's own
specification.
Further, the examiner contends [answer, page 3] that
Iwamatsu "shows a semiconductor tunneling device with amorphous
silicon oxide tunneling insulator structure" but, again, the
examiner fails to identify exactly what portion of the reference
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007