Appeal No. 2001-2042
Application No. 09/025,006
question is, therefore, whether employing the above missing transistor features taught in Kwo in
the low-temperature plastic substrate of the type described in Kaschmitter would have been
within the ordinary skill of one in this art.3 On this record, we answer this question in the
negative.
As our reviewing court has often stated, “virtually all [inventions] are combinations of
old elements.” Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ.
865, 870 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1579-80, 219
USPQ 8, 12 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Most, if not all, inventions are combinations and mostly of old
elements.”) If identification of each claimed element in the prior art alone were sufficient to
negate patentability, very few patents would ever issue. Therefore, “[w]hen determining the
patentability of a claimed invention which combines two known elements, ‘the question is
whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination.’” See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, as indicated supra, Kaschmitter teaches, inter alia, the deposition of an amorphous
silicon layer over a low-temperature plastic substrate that can only withstand process
temperatures of up to 1800 C. See column 2, lines 24-30. Although Kwo discloses the
remaining thin film transistor features recited in claim 17, see Kwo, Figure 4, it teaches using
2(...continued)
knowledge which is peculiar to the thin film transistor art. Compare Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091,
165 USPQ at 420-21.
3 The admitted prior art is not relied upon to cure these deficiencies.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007