Appeal No. 2002-0528
Application No. 09/524,519
portion (16) of Liaw in view of applicant’s [sic,
applicants’] admitted prior art, to reduce leakage
current.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis. As pointed
out by the appellants (appeal brief filed Jul. 16, 2001, paper
12, page 5), the structure depicted in Figure 1 of the present
specification does not contain any sidewall portions or residual
pockets as shown in Liaw. Hence, even if combined, the
collective teachings of Liaw and the appellants’ admitted prior
art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to implant
the channel-stop regions before the formation of the residual
pockets 16. Absent any additional evidence constituting the
requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to implant the channel-stop
regions after the formation of the residual pockets 16 in Liaw,
we must agree with the appellants (appeal brief, page 6) that
the examiner’s reasoning is based on impermissible hindsight
reconstruction. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“‘The factual inquiry whether to combine
references must be thorough and searching.’...It must be based
on objective evidence of record. This precedent has been
reinforced in myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with.”);
W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“To imbue one of ordinary
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007