Appeal No. 2000-0465
Application 08/826,110
argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also
Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration of all the
pertinent evidence and arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal,
the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by
which the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, Slip OP
00-1158 page 9. With these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
The Appellant argues that it is improper to combine the device of Calawa of an n-
type material with the device of Hatano of a p-type material. Appeal Brief, page 4, lines
6-18. Appellant further argues that the Calawa and Hatano references are not properly
combinable because Calawa’s base is n-type semiconductor material and Hatano’s base is
p-type semiconductor material and ohmic contacts between n-type and p-type
semiconductor materials are not interchangeable. Reply Brief, page 3, lines 9-12
In reviewing Hatano, we find that Hatano teaches a semiconductor laser with a p-
type base and Pd/Ti/Pt/Au laminate electrode. Hatano, column 21, lines 24-30. The
Appellant’s semiconductor device comprises an electron conducting region and an ohmic
contact of a palladium layer, a barrier layer, and a gold layer on top. Specification, page
4, lines 8-14. Appeal Brief, page 14, lines 23-25. Hatano teaches a Pd/barrier/Au layer
for a p-type material. However, for an n-type material, Hatano does not teach
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007