Appeal No. 1998-2896
Application No. 08/558,564
36 (Brief, pages 11 and 12), the examiner proposes to subject
it to Saitoh’s cleaning process. In view of the total lack of
a need for such a cleaning step in Tamura, we can only assume
that the examiner wants to interject one in Tamura in order to
meet the claimed limitation of “forming a second layer of non-
monocrystalline silicon over the planar upper surface of the
first layer of non-monocrystalline silicon.” In short, the
obviousness rejection of claims 30, 32 and 40 is reversed
because we agree with appellant (Brief, page 12) that “there
is no motivation to apply the cleaning steps taught by Saitoh
to the Tamura process,” and that “the Examiner has
impermissibly used Applicant’s specification as a template to
piece together the teachings of Tamura and Saitoh.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 31, 33 through 37 and
41 is reversed because Hillenius and the Wolf publications
neither teach nor would have suggested the noted missing step
in the teachings of Tamura.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007