Appeal No. 95-3335
Application 08/083,231
The appellant further argues that the IBM Disclosure does
not suggest the production of "useful quantities" of circularly
polarized light, since it suggests only injection of small
quantities of electrons into small areas where a magnetic moment
may or may not exist. However, the examiner is also correct that
the claims do not require any particular quantity of light to be
emitted and that the amount of light emitted in the device of the
IBM Disclosure is sufficiently useful for the purpose disclosed.
The appellant’s argument is without merit.
The IBM Disclosure does not expressly disclose a second
contact contacting another region of the semiconductor substrate.
However, the examiner gave many plausible reasons why it would
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that such a second contact should be provided. Among
the reasons given by the examiner are: (1) the second contact
would set up an electric field inside the substrate to draw the
electron flow in the proper direction; and (2) the second contact
would provide a discharge path for the electrons which are
accumulating in the substrate. See the examiner’s discussion in
the answer from page 4, line 15, to page 5, line 2. These
reasons are rational and plausible. Therefore, the burden has
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007