Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
Rejection is a classic hindsight reasoning test
which has been found improper. . . .
In response, the examiner asserts, answer at page 6, that:
The Examiner maintains the combination to be proper.
The combination does not stretch the limits of
Graham v. Deere, but simply substitutes known
materials of one reference given motivation to
combine functional equivalents of another. The base
reference of Winstel teaches most of the invention
except for the materials which is why Hamakawa is
relied upon.
We disagree with the examiner’s assertion. Our reading
of the reference indicates that Hamakawa does teach a
photovoltaic device which has a structure generally similar to
the structure shown by the photovoltaic device in the
appellant’s invention, see Figure 1(b) and 4(b) and column 4,
lines 59-66 and column 5, lines 55 to column 6, line 14.
Thus, there is substrate made of glass at 1, first electrode
at 2, semiconductor material at 3, 4 and 5 and a second
electrode at 6. However, Hamakawa does not hint that such
structural material can be used in making of a light emitting
diode. Winstel, on the other hand, shows an optoelectronic
semiconductor coupling element but its whole device is made of
a single crystal as appellant has pointed out. Various parts
of the crystal are doped to suit the desired characteristics,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007