Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
claim 30 is an obvious design choice [answer, page 4]. The
examiner also notes that such a TFT was conventional in the
art as disclosed by Yamazaki (4,727,044) [not applied in the
statement of the rejection].
Appellants argue that neither Ohwada nor Mimura
teaches a hydrogen-doped TFT wherein the degree of
crystallization in the channel region is smaller than the
degree of crystallization in the source and drain regions.
Appellants’ position is basically that even though such
transistors were known in the art, there is no suggestion to
employ them in an active matrix electro-optical device [brief,
page 11]. The examiner responds that the degree of
crystallization in the channel layer being smaller than the
degree of crystallization in the source and drain layers was
conventional as disclosed by Yamazaki ’044 [not applied].
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 30 for
basically the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 22. The mere fact that the recitations of a claimed
invention existed separately in the prior art does not provide
motivation for their combination as claimed. The examiner has
officially applied no reference with the degree of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007