Appeal No. 95-3335
Application 08/083,231
shifted to the appellant to rebut the reasoning set forth by the
examiner.
The appellant argues (Br. at 5, lines 8-10) that "the
provision of an additional contact for applying a bias (and a
current) to the semiconductor could only be for the purpose of
increasing optical emissions over an increased area." That,
however, does not account for or otherwise nullify the examiner’s
stated reasons on why it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to provide the second contact. Thus,
the argument is not helpful to the appellant.
The appellant further argues that increased optical
emissions would interfere with and probably prevent the resolving
of particular domains of the thin film. But appellant’s argument
does not take the place of evidence, and there is no declaration
evidence in this record tending to show that the addition of a
second electrode in the device according to the IBM Disclosure
would render that device inoperative or unuseful. Note that even
the appellant uses the speculative term "probably" in his
argument. We conclude that the appellant has not established
that the presence of a second electrode in the device of the IBM
Disclosure would cause significant or substantial interference
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007