Appeal No. 1997-1696
Application 08/180,770
We note that Appellants' claim 20 recites "applying to said first region a potential which is lower
and has a greater magnitude than the potential of the input signal V thereby preventing an injection of
in
carriers generated at a junction between said first and second regions into said third region."
Furthermore, we note that independent claims 22, 23, 31, 32, 36 and 38 recite similar language.
We agree with the Examiner that Suzuki teaches the same structure as recited in the preamble
of Appellants' claim 20. However, we fail to find that Suzuki teaches the method of testing and, in
particular, applying to said first region a potential which is lower and has a greater magnitude than the
potential of the input signal V thereby preventing an injection of carriers generated at a junction
in
between said first and second regions into said third region. Furthermore, we note that Appellants'
prior art figures 1 and 2 do not provide the above limitation as well. The Examiner has not provided
any evidence of such teachings in the prior art.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when the proposition at issue is not
supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-
Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668,
148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007