Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
Notwithstanding Appellant’s arguments [brief, page 11 and
reply brief, page 2], which are no more than mere conclusory
statements, we note that Nakatsuka’s disclosure combined with
the ordinary skill of an artisan (see our discussion regarding
claim 7 above), would justify the rejection of claims 8 and
17.
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19. These claims each call for
various components of the claimed apparatus being “formed on a
single semiconductor substrate.” The Examiner asserts
[answer, pages 4 and 5], and we agree, that to arrange various
components of a recognition system on a single semiconductor
substrate would have been obvious to an artisan since the
process of constructing such components on a substrate is
admitted by Appellant to have been known [specification, page
12, lines 20 to 23]. Also, see our discussion of claim 7
above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary [brief, pages 11 and 12, and reply brief, pages 2 and
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007