Appeal No. 1996-3444 Application No. 08/245,785 modification would destroy the intent, purpose, or function of the Chang reference (Brief, page 5). Upon careful review of the applied prior art in light of Appellant’s arguments, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the Brief. In our view, Chang’s existing provision for a reset function obviates any need for an external reset switch and accompanying electrode connection. Since the reset techniques of Chang and Takeshita are so opposed to each other, it is our opinion that the rationale for combining their teachings could only come from an improper hindsight reconstruction of the invention by the Examiner. Therefore, since we can find no basis in the applied prior art to combine their teachings in the manner proposed by the Examiner, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. The rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Takeshita, Waters, and Young. It is apparent from the Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection at page 4 of the Answer that Young was applied solely to meet the ferroelectric material feature of dependent claim 2. As noted by the Examiner, Young teaches 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007