Appeal No. 97-1387
Application No. 08/251,011
Regarding appellants’ first argument, we are not
persuaded that the combination of the Hayashi and Malhi
teachings would defeat the purpose of Hayashi’s structure
“intended as a display device switch” because we find no
evidence that that is the purpose of Hayashi. While
appellants make the allegation that the intended purpose of
Hayashi’s structure is a display device switch, appellants
have not pointed to anything in Hayashi which provides
evidence of this purpose, the examiner concludes that the
English translation of Hayashi never discloses the device of
Figure 5 to be intended for use in a display device and our
independent review of the English translation leads us to the
same conclusion. Accordingly, without some evidence that
Hayashi discloses what appellants allege it discloses
regarding the structure’s use in a display device, appellants’
argument in this regard is simply not persuasive.
Moving on to appellants’ second argument, just because
Malhi may start with a crystalline material in order to
provide crystalline substrate transistors, this does not lead,
inescapably, to the conclusion that the only reason the
artisan would ever start with a crystalline material is to
provide crystalline substrate transistors. As the examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007