Appeal No. 1997-2846
Application 08/388,599
electrical parameters of alike structures to
accomplish the same prevention of incurring
conduction of the parasitic transistor. (Emphasis
added.)
Although we agree with the Examiner that Temple teaches
all the claim limitations except Lmax in the last paragraph,
we cannot agree with the Examiner’s above statement for
several reasons. Even if Temple accomplishes the same goal as
Appellants, this is not evidence of anticipation unless the
goal is accomplished with the same structure claimed. Also,
Appellants are not required to show that Temple “cannot
anticipate[] and/or inherently have the claimed relationship.”
The Examiner must show anticipation and/or inherency, and
Appellants must counter the Examiner’s evidence.
The Examiner has indicated how Temple achieves the same
result (Answer-bottom of page 8), but this does not involve
Appellants’ Lmax, or anything equivalent thereto. Temple
minimizes the lateral length of current path 52. At page 17
of Temple, parameters similar to those used by Appellants, are
used to determine path 52. But, path 52 is not Lmax as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007