Appeal No. 95-4873
Application No. 08/174,723
The Rejections
We note that appellant has not specifically argued the
patentability of any specific dependent claim, indicating how it
defines appellant’s invention over the prior art. Accordingly,
appellant’s dependent claims 8-10 stand or fall with independent
claim 7 and dependent claims 12-14 stand or fall with independent
claim 11. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 2 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
With respect to claims 7-14, appellant argues, among
other things, that the third terminal of the reference, the drain,
is not disclosed as being on the second tunneling barrier and that
the reference has only one tunneling structure, that under the
source, because the region beneath the drain (Ti/Pt/Au) is doped
and is part of the drain.
Appellant’s reply to the examiner’s answer includes an
affidavit of the inventor to the effect that the reference has
only one tunneling barrier.
The examiner answers broadly that the claims do not
recite tunnel structures but rather tunnel barriers, and that the
claimed structure reads on the prior art regardless of the doping
beneath the drain.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007