Appeal No. 1997-2041
Application No. 08/337,131
It is our judgement that, on balance, the evidence of
nonobviousness outweighs the evidence of obviousness provided
by the examiner. Consequently, we note that: (1) the absence
of any teaching in Hosokawa `872 and Hosokawa `874 regarding
the order of formation of the source/drain regions; (2) the
probative value of the appellant’s declaration which must be
given fair weight; and (3) the lack of evidence indicating that
a single cell can be produced by any other process other than a
self-alignment process, all draw us to the conclusion that the
appellant’s invention defined in claims 1-5, (10, 11) would4
not have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Hosokawa `872 combined with Chen or Hosokawa `874 combined with
Chen or Wolf. Therefore, both rejections of claims 1-5, 10 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
III. New Ground of Rejection under 37 CFR 1.196(b)
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this panel of
the Board introduces the following new ground of rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mazzali in view of Guterman or Woo.
In claims 10 and 11, it appears that the units of measurement are4
incorrect. “µ” should be changed to --µm--. This informality should be
corrected in any further prosecution that may occur.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007