Appeal No. 2003-0456 Page 5
Application No. 09/149,289
Here, Hanak does not support the examiner's assertion that, "for a device that is
intended to react to incident light, it is necessary to insure that no obstructions to such
light are provided. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 4 (emphasis added).) To the contrary,
the reference discloses that its "arrays of interconnected semiconductor devices such
as photovoltaic cells," col. 1, ll. 11-12, can operate with some obstructions to light. As
admitted by the examiner, "Hanak shows that finger 9 obscures . . . a small fraction of
the top surface (column 6, line 8)." (Id.) Figure 6A of the reference confirms the
admission by showing "three fingers 149 extending over each island 131 of conductive
material 125. . . " Col. 10, ll. 3-4.
Neither does Kawakami support the examiner's assertion. To the contrary, the
examiner admits that the reference merely states "that there must be provision for
getting sufficient light through the top layer (column 11, line 11)." (Id. (emphasis
added)). Allowing sufficient light is not tantamount to removing all obstructions. As
aforementioned, Hanak evidences that solar cells can receive sufficient light to operate
when partially obstructed from light. Rather than forming some combination of
Grimmer, Hanak, and Kawakami, moreover, the aforementioned teachings of Hanak
and Kawakami easily could have lead one of skill in the art to "merely practice the
device taught by Kawakami," (Reply Br. at 1), or that taught by Hanak.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007