Appeal No. 2005-2695
Application No. 10/280,926
The examiner maintains that Kim teaches the claimed invention and that Kim
teaches that the regions of opposing conductivity are across the electrode. The
examiner maintains that the regions are 34 and 32 ( or 54 and 52). We cannot agree
with the examiner and find that figures 1-3 of Kim teach the same conductivity type
across the electrode and the examiner has not clearly established how the teachings of
Kim teach the recited limitations of independent claim 7. From the express teaching of
Kim, we cannot agree with the examiner that Kim teaches a PN junction across the
electrode. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7 and its dependent claims
8-12.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007