Ex Parte CAREY et al - Page 3

               Appeal No. 2001-2042                                                                                               
               Application No. 09/025,006                                                                                         
                                                         REJECTIONS                                                               
               1)     Claims 17,18, and 23-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined                             
                      teachings of Kaschmitter and Kwo; and                                                                       
               2)     Claims 17, 18, and 23-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined                            
                      teachings of Kaschmitter, Kwo and the admitted prior art.                                                   
                                                           OPINION                                                                
                      We have carefully reviewed  the arguments presented by both the examiner and the                            
               appellants in support of their respective positions.  In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement                  
               with the appellants that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness                        
               within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 103                         
               rejections and remand this application to the examiner for appropriate action consistent with our                  
               instructions below.  Our reasons for this determination follow.                                                    
                      The examiner correctly finds that Kaschmitter discloses a low temperature plastic                           
               substrate wherein the plastic substitute is incapable of withstanding sustained processing                         
               temperatures of higher than about180oC. coated with an insulating layer of SiO2.  See the                          
               Answer, page 2, together with Kaschmitter, column 2.   Although Kaschmitter indicates that this                    
               substrate can be used to form thin-film devices, inclusive of thin film transistors, it does not                   
               specify employing the claimed silicon layer,  gate dielectric layer, gate metal layer, oxide layer                 
               and metal contacts.  See, e.g., column 2, lines 47-52 in conjunction with column 1, lines 25-30.                   
               To remedy these deficiencies, the examiner asserts that such features are well known thin-                         
               film transistor features2 as shown by Kwo.  See the Answer, pages 3, 4 and 10.  The dispositive                    

               2  The examiner cannot take official notice of these asserted technical facts since they are                       
               directed to “specific ‘knowledge’ of the prior art, which might be peculiar to a particular art”. In               
               re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). That is, we determine that                          
               the so-called “well known thin film transistor features” are directed to specific prior art                        
                                                                                                     (continued...)               

                                                                3                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007