Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”).
Analysis
We first consider independent claim 4. On page 3 of the
examiner’s answer, the examiner discusses Winstel and Hamakawa
and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
combine the teachings of Hamakawa for the diode structure with
that of Winstel in order to integrate in one photocoupling
device.” On pages 6 through 9 of the brief, appellant argues
that the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness. However, we do not agree with the appellant’s
argument because the two references combined as suggested by
the examiner do present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant further argues, pages 9 through 14 of the brief,
that the claimed combinations are not obvious. Appellant
argues, brief at page 13, that:
The combination of the elements recited in the
claims could not have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, using the Winstel et al.
reference as the starting point, because no
teaching, incentive or suggestion exists, outside of
the confines of the present application, for such a
modification. The test utilized in the Final
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007