Appeal No. 2003-0886
Application No. 09/466,845 Page 13
F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings
of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Because Chen has no need for Kapoor's salicide contacts 46
and 48, and Kapoor does not address the issue of providing an LDD
in a MROM, we are not persuaded that teachings from the applied
prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed limitations.
Thus, we find that Kapoor does not make up for the deficiencies
of the basic combination of Chen and Hirano, and that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claims 2, 16, and 17. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 2, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007