Appeal No. 1998-1993
Application 08/320,729
argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on
the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783
F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 44-49 and 51
based on the teachings of Morozumi, Togashi and Asars. These
claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page
3]. With respect to representative, independent claim 44, the
examiner points to Morozumi as teaching a transistor of the
type claimed in which it is desired to minimize leakage
current. Specifically, Figure 10 of Morozumi teaches the
relationship between transistor leakage current and the
thickness of the channel region. The lowest leakage current
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007