Appeal No. 96-1075
Application 08/041,737
an underlying substrate; however, it was well known in this
art to form silicon on sapphire (SOS) or silicon on
insulator (SOI) structure" (EA18). The rejection does not
incorporate this finding of what was well known. Aoki and
Sunami are not sufficient to support the rejection.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 2,
4-9, 12-14, 16, 52-56, 59-81, and 83 is reversed. The
references to Ota, Mogani, Gurvitch, Yamazaki, and Nishio do
not cure the deficiency with respect to the rejection of the
independent claims. Accordingly, the rejections of claims
10, 11, 15, 17-21, 57, 82, and 84 are reversed.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007