Appeal No. 1999-1647
Application 08/934,088
phototransistors with any of these relationships and that any
of the relationships are [sic, would have been] obvious."
Appellants have specifically challenged that the cited
art does not demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed
relative thicknesses of gate insulating films. Therefore, it
is not sufficient for the Examiner to rely merely on
possibility, speculation, or design choice for establishing
the obviousness of the limitation of the gate insulating film
of the image sensor element being thicker than the gate
insulating film of the driver element. Even if we were aware
that it was within the knowledge of those skilled in the art
that it was desirable to make the gate insulating film of
image sensor TFTs thicker than the gate insulating film of
driver TFTs, this would not satisfy the requirement for
evidence. See In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386,
59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("With respect to core
factual findings in a determination of patentability, however,
the Board cannot simply reach conclusions based on its own
understanding or experience ) or on its assessment of what
would be basic knowledge or common sense."). What is needed
is some evidence that it was known or desirable for thin film
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007