Appeal No. 1997-3161
Application No. 08/450,553
In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ 152, 153 (CCPA
1975).
The Examiner asserts (Answer, pages 5 and 6) that, since
the conductivity types of the substrate and the source/drain
are not recited in the claims, there are combinations of
conductivity types for which the invention would be
inoperative, i.e. electrons would not be transported to the
floating gate. After careful review of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s stated position
in the Briefs. As pointed out by Appellant, the disclosure in
the specification relative to Figure 3 of the drawings
describes a detailed embodiment of the invention, the
operativeness of which the Examiner has not questioned, which
includes an indication of the conductivity types of the
semiconductor components of the memory cell. In our view, the
present disclosure is of sufficient detail so as to enable one
of ordinary skill to select the proper combination of
conductivity types to enable an operative embodiment of the
claimed invention.
In view of the above, we find that the Examiner has not
established a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007