Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
elongated metal lines in such a manner that said
at least one of said elongated metal lines traps
charge carriers.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Agusta 3,611,071 Oct. 05, 1971
Hillenius et al. 4,825,278 Apr. 25, 1989
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hillenius et al
(hereafter, “Hillenius”). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Agusta.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 13 through
15 are anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on Feb. 3, 1994 (Paper No. 27). On
Mar. 9, 1994 the examiner mailed out an examiner’s answer (Paper No. 28). On
Sept. 21, 1995 the examiner withdrew the final office action and entered a new
rejection (Paper No. 29). That rejection was made final (Paper No. 31) and it
is from that rejection which Appellant takes his appeal. We will refer to the
appeal brief filed Aug. 30, 1996 (Paper No. 33) as simply the brief and the
responsive examiner’s answer (Paper No. 34) as the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007