Appeal No. 95-3573
Application No. 07/839,704
In response to the examiner’s rejection of claim 57 under
the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being redundant with
claim 55, appellant argues (Brief, page 25) that “‘connected’ in
claim 55 may be interpreted to refer to any type of connection,”
and that “‘electrically connected’ in claim 55 is a properly
recited further limitation.” We agree. The rejection of claim
57 under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
Appellant’s response to the prior art rejections of the
claims on appeal is an argument (Brief, pages 3, 11 and 21, and
second Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that none of the applied
references shows a pn junction that forms a depletion layer
extending into the channel region to “at least nearly” pinch-off2
the channel region in the absence of a bias voltage applied to
the gate region. We agree. Cade clearly indicates (column 8,
lines 8 through 18) that the entire channel region is completely
pinched-off, and the Electronics publication merely states that
the transistor is “cut off.” Thus, all of the obviousness
rejections are reversed because Ishitani, Schuermeyer, Jenne,
2All of the independent claims on appeal either recite that
a depletion layer is formed extending into the channel region to
“at least nearly pinch-off” the channel region, or that a
potential distribution forms a potential barrier “which
approaches a pinch-off.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007