Appeal No. 1999-1647
Application 08/934,088
to provide factual evidence to demonstrate the obviousness of
the limitation.
The Examiner finds that "phototransistors and the other
FET devices are subject to different gate design choices . . .
[and,] [i]n general, different transistors will have different
gate oxide thicknesses" (FR2; EA3-4). The Examiner states
(EA6): "Applicant states that the Examiner explained that
phototransistors and other transistors have different gate
oxide thicknesses but that the fact was not shown in prior
art. It is, however, clear that such design choices are known
in the art and are regularly practice[d] by those performing
device design." As to Appellants' argument (at Br7) that the
fact that different gate oxide thicknesses are possible does
not render obvious a phototransistor gate insulating film with
a greater thickness than a drive transistor gate insulating
film, the Examiner states (EA6-7): "Note that, in any case,
the relationship of the two oxide thicknesses is in the
position of less than, equal to or greater than. It is
claimed, by the Examiner, that it is [sic, was] known in the
state of the art to combine drive transistors with
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007