Appeal 2007-3958
Application 10/611,229
but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge,
the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (“Having
established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then
properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness
‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill
in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”);
In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA
1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . . .”). The analysis supporting
obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at
1396.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 1-12.
The Examiner found that Kim teaches a semiconductor memory
device comprising all the features of the claim with the exception of
showing the sidewall of projection being vertical or the side surface of the
opposite projections being parallel to each other. Referring to FIG. 3(a) and
FIG. 3(b), Kim discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a stack of
layers (16) formed on top of substrate (10) comprising a first conductive
layer (12) formed on the gate dielectric layer (11), a multiple tunnel junction
(MTJ) insulation barrier structure (13) formed on the a first conductive layer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013