Appeal No. 1996-3444
Application No. 08/245,785
view, these structural teachings are so opposite in approach
that any motivation to combine them must have resulted from an
improper attempt to reconstruct Appellant’s invention in
hindsight. Accordingly, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 3, and 8 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 2, 4-7, and 9-21 as being
unpatentable over Brown in view of Sze and Young.
To the proposed combination of Brown and Sze, the
Examiner offers Young for the sole teaching of using barium
titanate as a ferroelectric material. Young, however, has no
disclosure which would overcome the deficiencies of the
proposed combination of Brown and Sze discussed previously.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 4-7, and 9-21 cannot be
sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of the clams on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007