Appeal No. 1998-2966
Application 08/605,566
obviousness. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693,
16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901-02 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (holding that
an invention may be obvious for reasons the inventor did not
contemplate) (overruling-in-part In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216,
6 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). It is sufficient that the
collective teachings of the references suggest the claimed
structure. Appellant does not address, and therefore has not
shown error, in this reasoning. We sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4 for the reasons stated in the examiner's answer.
We comment on one other issue. The Examiner asserts for the
first time during prosecution, in the examiner's answer, that
there is no evidence that the claimed invention solves the
floating gate ion invasion problem of a non-volatile
semiconductor device and that it is not clear how the positively
charged ions are trapped (EA8-9). Appellant argues that the
Examiner has made inaccurate factual assumptions (RBr1-2) and
that the Examiner has not provided a sound technological basis
for challenging the assertions in the specification (RBr4).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner appears to be merely
speculating and provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007