Appeal No. 1997-3441
Application No. 08/614,920
generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051,
5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp.,
732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These
showings by the Examiner are an essential part of complying with
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 29, the
Examiner as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to
combine Ito, Fang, and Sedra to address the claimed integrated
MOSFET and resistor structure. Takasu and Kurtz are added to
the combination to address the silicon carbide (SiC) material
limitations.
In response, Appellants assert a lack of suggestion or
motivation in the references for combining or modifying
teachings to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. After
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007