Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
such as electrodes at 6, light emitting diode at 1 and a light
detecting device at item 3 of the figure. The first and the
second electrodes in each of the light emitting diode and the
photo detecting diode are indicated at 6 in the form of metal
layers and show no suggestion of being constructed in a
sandwich formation as claimed. We find nothing in Winstel
which would suggest an artisan to modify the structure of the
light emitting diode and the photovoltaic diode to make them
as two separate structures and to construct the claimed
electrodes and the semiconductor layers in the form of a
sandwich as claimed. We agree with appellant that an artisan
would have to
use the appellant’s invention as a road map to arrive at the
combination suggested by the examiner to meet the claimed
invention.
The Federal Circuit states that “[the] mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007