Appeal No. 2006-0318
Application No. 10/195,271
would have been led to use gates made of the same metal, wherein
the metal in one gate has a different texture than the metal in the
other gate, i.e., the metal in one gate is crystalline whereas the
same metal in the other gate either has a different crystalline
structure or is amorphous.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the inventions
claimed in the appellants’ claims 2-4. Consequently, we reverse
the rejections of those claims.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Hsu is affirmed. The rejections of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hsu in view of Lang, and claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Hsu in view of Iwase, are reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007