Appeal No. 1997-1696
Application 08/180,770
Furthermore, our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), focused on
the procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under Section 103.
As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under section 102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
We note that Appellants' claim 25 recites "applying to said third region a second power source
potential higher than the first power source potential thereby preventing an injection of carriers
generated at a junction between said first region and the first current terminal region of said first input
field effect transistor into the first current terminal region of said second input field effect transistor." We
note that independent claims 33 and 40 recite similar limitations.
We question whether the Examiner has shown that Suzuki teaches the structure set forth in the
preamble of independent claim 25. However, even if the Examiner has shown such structure, we fail to
find that Suzuki teaches the method of testing as recited in independent claims 25, 33 and 40. In
particular, we fail to find that Suzuki or the admitted prior art figures 1 and 2 teaches the above
limitation of applying to the third region a second power source potential higher than the first power
source potential thereby preventing an injection of carriers. Again, the Examiner has not provided any
evidence that these methods steps are known in the prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007