Appeal No. 2006-3106
Application 10/209,746
since the Examiner did not make a rejection under obviousness. We do note
that independent claim 1 recites that the plurality of connections are to “a
potential” which we find to be the same or a singular potential which the
backside and source connections would not necessarily be to the same
potential.
To agree with the Examiner’s stated rejection would require us to rely
upon speculation as to what the ordinary skilled artisan would find by the
sparse description and drawings of D’Anna. We cannot extend 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 that far for the Examiner. We cannot find that the express teachings
of D’Anna teach plural connections to a potential in a single transistor as
recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Similarly, we find that D’Anna does not teach the recited plural
connections to a potential in a single transistor as recited in independent
claim 11 and its dependent claims.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner has
not identified any teaching, suggestion or convincing line of reasoning
which remedies the noted deficiency. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 3, 6, and 17.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007