Appeal No. 1997-3441
Application No. 08/614,920
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1571, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). We are left to speculate why one of ordinary skill
would have found it obvious to combine the FET and resistor
features of Ito, Fang, and Sedra and the SiC material teachings
of Kurtz and Takasu. The only reason we can discern is improper
hindsight reconstruction of Appellants' claimed invention. In
order for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we would need to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968), rehearing denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
We further agree with Appellants (Brief, page 14) that,
even assuming arguendo that proper motivation were established
for the Examiner’s proposed combination, the resulting structure
would fall well short of meeting the specific requirements of
the claims on appeal. As pointed out by Appellants, each of the
independent claims 1, 10, and 29, require a MOSFET electrode
structure having heavily doped ion-implanted regions situated in
a SiC layer of the same conductivity type. Although Sedra
discloses a resistor structure with n+ regions in an n type
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007