Appeal No. 95-1555
Application 07/871,530
fall together. However, in the argument section of the brief,
Appellants fail to point out reasons as to why the particular
claim limitations for claims 11, 14 and 15 are further patentably
distinguished over the applied art. For these claims, Appellants
rely on the limitations as recited in Appellants’ claim 10. 37
CFR § 1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988 states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests
and which applies to more than one claim, it will be
presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall
together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in
the appropriate part or parts of the arguments under
subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant presents
reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected
claims to be separately patentable.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988, which was
controlling at the time of Appellants’ filing the brief, we will,
thereby, consider Appellants’ claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 to stand
or fall together, with claim 10 being considered the
representative claim.
In regard to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya and Anderson,
we note that only the limitation that is in dispute is “a layer
of semiconductor material of said first conductivity type but of
increased dopant concentration in relation to said substrate
overlying said substrate of said first conductivity type” as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007