Appeal No. 96-1763
Application No. 08/056,941
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6 and 11
which depend from claim 1.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 5-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 2 is directed to the same basic invention as claimed in claim 1, but adds a
field of use limitation that the semiconductor is a luminous element and that a window is
present over the area for current path to allow light to exit.
As stated above, the Examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning for
the combination of Kobayashi, Marschall and Dixon. Similarly, the Examiner has not set
forth proper motivation for the addition of the Noda patent to the combination of
Kobayashi, Marschall and Dixon. Furthermore, Noda does not supply the missing
motivation to modify the combination of Kobayashi, Marschall and Dixon; therefore, the
rejections of claims 1 and 2 do not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, as
discussed above.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 2 are neither taught nor fairly
suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 5-12, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007