Appeal No. 97-1387
Application No. 08/251,011
[Figure 5 of Malhi], it would have been obvious “to have the p
type silicon supporting substrate of Malhi…in Hayashi because
it is a widely use [sic, used] supporting material for [a]
thin film transistor” [answer, page 5].
While the examiner’s rationale appears reasonable, on its
face, appellants make the following arguments:
1. Combining Hayashi and Malhi would defeat the purpose of
Hayashi’s structure which is intended as a display
device switch. Therefore, a wafer substrate positioned
as articulated by the examiner “would block the view of
the display thereabove” [brief-page 12].
2. The polysilicon transistors of Hayashi would not result
if the fabrication process started with the crystalline
semiconductor material wafer used by Malhi since the
point of starting with a crystalline material is to
provide crystalline substrate transistors.
3. Hayashi does not disclose the FETs required by
independent claim 1, i.e., that they be “substantially
crystalline.” On the contrary, Hayashi’s transistors
are formed in polycrystalline substrates.
Trademark Office. A copy of the translation is attached
hereto.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007