Appeal No. 96-1512
Application 08/297,279
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 based on the evidence of
record in this case. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-15. Since independent claim 21
is similar in scope to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 21 or dependent claim 22.
Independent claim 16 recites the specific interconnection
of layers between a first heterojunction transistor and a second
heterojunction transistor. Appellants argue that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
structure specifically recited in claim 16 [brief, pages 5-6].
We agree. The examiner has not indicated how each of the
recitations of independent claim 16 is suggested by the teachings
of the applied prior art. The examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by appropriate factual findings
which have not been made here. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 16 or dependent claims 17-20.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of any of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007