Appeal No. 1999-0892
Application No. 08/630,128
but rather to choose a further orientation [001] for improved
results.
After careful review of the applied prior art references in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. While it is
proper for an Examiner to consider, not only the specific
teachings of a reference, but inferences a skilled artisan might
draw from them, it is equally important that the teachings of
prior art references be considered in their entirety. See In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); W.L.
Gore & Associates, Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
In particular, in order for us to accept the Examiner’s
conclusions in the present factual situation, we would have to
improperly selectively ignore significant portions of the
disclosure of the Onodera reference. In our view, the skilled
artisan, considering the entirety of the disclosure of Onodera,
would be led away from selecting the particular gate orientation
specified in Appellants’ claims, i.e. an orientation producing a
drain current in a direction along the [01(-1)] orientation. We
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007