Appeal No. 1996-1758
Application No. 08/358,050
24-29, the Examiner proposes to modify the combined transistor
structure teachings of Poleshuk and Ishikura by relying on Wu
to supply the missing offset drain structure. The Examiner,
however, has never attempted to show how each of the claimed
limitations is suggested by the teachings of the applied prior
art. Further, the Examiner’s statement of the grounds of
rejection is lacking in any rationale as to why the skilled
artisan would combine Poleshuk and Ishikura. Rather than
pointing to specific information in Poleshuk and Ishikura that
would suggest their combination, the Examiner instead has
described piecemeal similarities between each of the
references and the claimed invention. Nowhere does the
Examiner identify any suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
combine the Poleshuk and Ishikura references nor does the
Examiner establish any findings as to the level of ordinary
skill in the art, the nature of the problem to be solved, or
any other factual findings that would support a proper
obviousness analysis. See, e.g., Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
37 USPQ2d 1626 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007