Appeal No. 2004-0634
Application No. 09/948,271
refer to a P-well 320, an N-well 318, and a P-type substrate 316 (specification, page 26 and Fig.
22). The claim term “triple well” thus includes at least structures wherein the doped substrate
itself makes up one of the three wells.
The examiner finds that Williams teaches I/O circuits 32 comprising a cascode circuit 54
(answer, page 3). The examiner further finds that Momohara teaches I/O circuits 53’-4 formed
over a triple well structure including a P-well 27C-4 and N-well 22-4 formed in the substrate
(answer, page 4). Appellants do not dispute the examiner's finding that Momohara teaches an
input circuit formed over a triple well within a semiconductor substrate. Nor do appellants
dispute the examiner's finding that Williams teaches a cascode circuit that is part of an
input/output circuit. We find that all of the claim limitations are met by Momohara and Williams
as combined in the manner asserted by the examiner. Thus, the dispositive issue in this case is
whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Momohara and Williams to produce a device having a cascode circuit formed over a triple well
within a substrate.
In order to establish that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner must show some objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art or
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led the person of
ordinary skill to combine the teachings. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "The mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84. However, "[a]s long as some motivation or
suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007