Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
semiconductor lattice structures were known. It is
appellants’ position, however, that there is no suggestion to
use such a structure with a hydrogen-doped TFT in an electro-
optical device as claimed. We agree. Mimura would have led
the artisan to use a hydrogen-doped TFT having a semiconductor
area made from polycrystalline silicon, monocrystalline
silicon or amorphous silicon. The only teaching or suggestion
of using a crystalline structure with lattice distortion for a
hydrogen-doped TFT in an electro-optical device comes from
appellants’ own specification.
Since it is improper to use an inventor’s own
disclosure as a template for recreating the invention, and
since there is no teaching or suggestion from only Ohwada and
Mimura to use the crystalline structure with lattice
distortion as claimed, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 22 or of claims 23-29, 31 and 32 which are grouped
therewith.
With respect to representative, independent claim 30,
the examiner essentially makes the same points that were made
with respect to claim 22. The examiner also observes that the
degree of crystallization in the channel layer as recited in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007