Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
(Fed. Cir. 1996), and the appellants’ specification defines a
“device” as “a transistor (i.e., both the operating transistor
and a parasitic transistor, if one exists) and the surrounding
materials (e.g., the field oxide, the gate dielectric, etc.) that
affect the operating parameters (e.g., the effective threshold
voltage, VT, etc.) of the transistor” (page 7, line 29 - page 8,
line 2). Thus, the term “device” in the appellants’ claim 1 does
not encompass Murdock’s diode assembly or magnetoresistive sensor
element.
The above-discussed deficiency in Murdock is not remedied by
the admitted prior art disclosure relied upon by the examiner of
first and second devices having three leads (answer, page 5).
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the integrated circuit claimed in the appellants’
claim 1. We therefore reverse the rejection over Murdock in view
of the admitted prior art of this claim and claims 2-7 that
depend therefrom.8
8 Although we are not able to reach the merits of the
rejection of claim 6 over Kalnitsky in view of the admitted prior
art due to failure of this claim to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, we are able to reverse the rejection of claim 6
over Murdock in view of the admitted prior art because claim 6
depends from claim 1 and the rejection of claim 1 over Murdock in
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007