Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
extensive ensuing precedent. The patent examination
process centers on prior art and the analysis thereof.
When patentability turns on the question of
obviousness, the search for and analysis of the prior
art includes evidence relevant to the finding of
whether there is a teaching, motivation, or suggestion
to select and combine the references relied on as
evidence of obviousness. See, e.g., McGinley v.
Franklin Sports., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d
1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("the central question is
whether there is reason to combine [the] references," a
question of fact drawing on the Graham factors).
We find that the Examiner states on page 3, line 19 to page 4,
line 2 of the Answer that, "[i]t would have been obvious to
modify the Husimi et al. device to use a second wafer as taught
by Temple et al. and to thin the second wafer to the necessary
thickness as taught by Buti et al."
Having reviewed the Husimi, Temple and Buti references, we
find no factual basis or motivation for suggesting their
combination as suggested by the Examiner. Further, we find no
evidence to modify the Husimi reference, in light of Temple, to
replace the single doped wafer with two separate wafers bonded by
silicidizing a thin metal layer therebetween.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Husimi,
Temple and Buti. Claims 2, 4 through 6 and 9 are dependent on
claim 1, and therefore include the aforementioned limitations of
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007