Appeal No. 2001-2043
Application No. 09/044,629
through an angle of 180°. However, as we see it, this latter
teaching, considered in conjunction with the overall teaching
of Boardman reference, would clearly not have motivated one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Boardman patent
since to do so would obviously destroy Boardman's objective of
semiconductor device capture and retention.
The brief does not discuss the Jackson document, applied
with the Boardman teaching in the separate rejection of
dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Suffice it to
say that we readily discern that the Jackson reference does
not cure the deficiency of the Boardman disclosure, as focused
upon, supra.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained any
of the rejections on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007