Appeal No. 2005-0518 Page 5
Application No. 09/313,424
We also note that there is no reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to place the
nitrogen ions of Hsu into the monocrystalline layer. Hsu specifically desires to place all the ions
in the silicon dioxide layer and no teaching in Sato or elsewhere has been relied upon which
provides a reason, suggestion, or motivation to modify the location of the nitrogen ion
placement.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 16-21 and 23-25.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16-21 and 23-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007