Appeal No. 2000-2060
Application 08/568,209
performance of the chip and to provide an electrical connection
as the Examiner states on page 5, lines 13 through 15 of the
Examiner’s Answer. “[C]onclusory statements . . . do not
adequately address the issue of motivation to combine.” In re
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1434. Thus, we fail to find
that the Examiner has provided the requisite findings based on
objective evidence to combine Tango with Hess and Hawkins.
Lastly, the Examiner has not relied on Hawkins to meet the
limitations of a multi-functional layer having a first portion
that functions as a channel of the transistor, an uninterrupted
layer of conductive material inter-connected between and forming
at least a part of the transistor and the resistor and wherein
preselected portions of the uninterrupted layer of conductive
material are doped at different levels such that a first portion
of the layer functions as a channel of the transistor, or the
step of inter-connecting the transistor with an uninterrupted
layer of conductive material so that a first portion of the layer
functions as a channel of the transistor. As such, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 13 and 18.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007