Appeal No. 1999-1088
Application 08/689,867
electric conductors, the plurality of polysilicon thin film resistors in series with the
respective first conductive means, and the plurality of first connecting means "so that each
of said first electric conductors is at the same potential as the respective one of said
resistors."
If we assume for the sake of argument that the examiner’s rejection is proper within
35 U.S.C. §103 and that the references are properly combinable with each other within 35
U.S.C. §103, we have concluded that the subject matter of independent claims 27 and 30
on appeal would not have been met or achieved. The claimed interconnectability of the
recited elements noted in the preceding paragraph so that they would be at the same
electric potential would not have been achieved since the combined teachings of the
references relied upon either achieved interconnectability to a common potential of
overlying or underlying conductors with respect to polysilicon thin film resistors, but not
necessarily both.
Our basic problem, however, with the examiner’s position is that we do not agree
with the examiner that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the
applied prior art. The relevance of Mead to the claimed invention is hard to see until we
consider the teachings of MacElwee which indicates in prior art Figure 1 that polysilicon
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007