Appeal No. 1998-0077
Application No. 08/247,910
parallel to those contained in claim 21, i.e., etching a
portion of the insulating layer to define a resistor body and
contact portions in a polysilicon layer, followed by
patterning and etching the polysilicon layer to define first
and second contact portions. Therefore, we find that the prior
art relied upon by the Examiner fails to teach these
limitations, for the same reasons specified with respect to
claim 21.
Appellants' dependent claims 26 and 34 each depend from
one of claims 21 or 22, and therefore define over the prior
art of record for the reasons specified above with respect to
claims 21 and 22.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007