Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
crystallization as recited in claim 30, and the examiner has
offered no rationale for using a transistor having such
properties other than as an obvious design choice. The
examiner has failed to establish that the obviousness of the
claimed invention comes from the collective teachings of
Ohwada and Mimura. Rather, the examiner appears to have
concluded obviousness based on appellants’ own disclosure. As
noted above, such a conclusion is inappropriate.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claims 22-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22-32 is
reversed.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007