Appeal No. 1996-1431
Application 08/087,140
Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.;
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 76, the
examiner points to Oshima as teaching the integration of a memory
cell and a peripheral transistor in which the gate oxide of each
device is different. Oshima discloses nothing about additional
high voltage elements being integrated with the above-noted
components. The examiner cites Arakawa as teaching that high
voltage transistors are conventionally integrated with memory
cells. Since Oshima teaches a difference between the gate oxides
of the memory cells and the peripheral transistors, the examiner
concludes that the obvious addition of a high voltage transistor
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007