Appeal No. 2000-2060
Application 08/568,209
the references and combine them to render the claimed invention
obvious.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1434 quoting
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). See also Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at
1617 quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[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, 277 F.3d at
1344, 61 USPQ2d at 1434. With these principles in mind, we
commence review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of
Appellant and Examiner.
The Examiner acknowledges that Hess does not disclose the
multi-functional or uninterrupted layer having a first portion
that functions as a channel of the transistor as recited in
claims 1 and 18 or portions of an uninterrupted layer being doped
at different levels such that the a first portion functions as
the channel of the transistor as recited in claim 13. See
Examiner’s Answer, Page 4, lines 15-20. As such, we must
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007