Appeal No. 97-1387
Application No. 08/251,011
Our interpretation of “substantially crystalline” would
also be applicable to appellants’ second argument as an
alternative reason for finding that argument to be
unpersuasive. In other words, since “crystalline,” or
“substantially crystalline” covers both monocrystalline and
polycrystalline materials, appellants’ argument, that
polysilicon transistors would not result if the fabrication
process starts with a “crystalline” semiconductor material
wafer, would appear to be in error since the “crystalline”
semiconductor material wafer may be monocrystalline or
polycrystalline.
Appellants’ comments with regard to the background
section of the Sarma patent, of record, at page 13 of the
brief, are not persuasive since they are directed to things
outside the scope of claim 1. Similarly, the argument at
page 14 of the brief regarding “dimensional mismatch” is not
persuasive since claim 1 indicates no particular dimensions
and Hayashi does not appear to be directed, or limited, to
display devices, as contended by appellants.
Contrary to appellants’ contention, we fail to find any
reason why Malhi and Hayashi would not be combinable. They
are both directed to complementary type thin film field-effect
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007