Appeal No. 1998-1993
Application 08/320,729
inherently perform like the claimed invention is not a
substitute for a teaching or suggestion supporting an
obviousness rejection [brief, pages 7-10; reply brief, pages
1-3].
The examiner’s combination of Morozumi, Asars and Togashi
is fundamentally based on the examiner’s view that these three
references simply represent three conventional teachings of a
low leakage current thin-film transistor. That is, the
examiner asserts that there is nothing remarkable about his
selection of the three applied references because they are
evidence of what was conventional in this art. We would agree
with the examiner that a legitimate case for obviousness could
be made in theory if the three applied references related to
conventional features of the same or similar transistors.
However, we are unable to draw that conclusion.
The artisan would have appreciated that the operating
characteristics of a transistor are a function of many
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007