Appeal No. 2002-2087
Application No. 09/733,836
motivation to support the proposed combination of Lin and Williams
(see the Brief, pages 15-16; Reply Brief, pages 9-10). The
examiner states that the motivation or reason for combination is
“in order to activate the [Lin] device by providing external
connections to the source and drain regions.” Answer, page 6.
However, the examiner has not established that this motivation or
reason was disclosed or suggested by either Lin or Williams, known
to one of ordinary skill in this art, or would have been evident
from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The examiner’s statement that the
device of Lin as shown in Figure 6 “is not a final structure” is
only a mere assertion that the examiner has not supported by any
evidence or convincing reasoning.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of the
claims on appeal based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lin in view of
Williams.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007