Appeal No. 1999-2000
Application 08/859,494
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the
invention.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Appellants argue on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that none
of the prior art references teaches or suggests a non-
transparent electrode connected to the drain region of the
transistor that completely overlaps the channel region, as set
forth in claim 44. Appellants argue further on pages 6 and 7
of the brief, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine figure 7, Fisher and Asano to
modify any of these references to obtain the above limitation.
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that it would not have
been obvious to provide a non-transparent electrode connected
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007