Appeal No. 1997-2691
Application 08/496,849
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Turning to claim 1, we find that the Appellants' claim 1
argue is setting forth a Schottky barrier infrared
photovoltaic detector. Furthermore, we note that Appellants'
claim 1 does not recite a method for operation of the Schottky
barrier infrared photovoltaic detector. In addition, we find
that the claim does not set forth structure that requires
Applicants' argued tunability of wavelength sensibility during
operation. Therefore, we fail to find that the Examiner has
erred in finding that the combination of Yamaka and Pellegrini
in combination meets the Appellants' claim structure.
Appellants argue that there is no basis in the art of
record for combining Yamaka and Pellegrini as proposed by the
Examiner. In particular, Appellants argue that the
combination is improper because neither of these references
recognizes the problem solved by the present invention.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007