Appeal No. 1998-0077
Application No. 08/247,910
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found
in the prior art, or by implications contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995,
217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when
determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 5 through 9 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Ning, Hanagasaki, Winnerl et al., and Brower fail to teach
Appellants' claimed limitations. In particular, Appellants
argue that Ning, Hanagasaki, Winnerl et al., and Brower fail
to teach removing a portion of the insulating layer so as to
expose the contact portions of the polysilicon layer, then
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007