Appeal No. 2005-0188
Application No. 09/949,541
We agree with the appellants’ arguments. The examiner has
not presented a plausible reason (answer, pages 4 and 5) for
modifying the undoped polysilicon layer in Spraggins with the
varied doping concentrations of the polysilicon layer as taught
by Singh. Turning to the applied references for guidance, we
find that neither reference teaches or would have suggested to
the skilled artisan to change the undoped polysilicon layer in
Spraggins to a doped polysilicon layer with varied dopant
concentration as taught by Singh. The obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 is, therefore, reversed because the
evidence of record does not support the examiner’s contention
that the skilled artisan would have looked to the teachings of
Singh to make the proposed modification to the teachings of
Spraggins.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007