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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007