Appeal No. 96-2120
Application 08/300,097
prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp.,
732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to representative claim 15, the examiner’s position is that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to replace the single barrier layers in the admitted prior art of
Figures 1(a)-1(b) with superlattice barrier layers as taught by Coon [answer, pages 3-4] .
Appellant does not dispute the obviousness of this proposed combination of teachings, but
appellant argues that the collective teachings of the admitted prior art and Coon would
result in quantum wells having a single bound excited energy state rather than the plurality
of different bound excited energy states in a predetermined pattern as recited in claim 15
[brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner responds that even though the quantum wells of the prior
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007