Appeal No. 1997-3936
Application No. 08/449,409
substrate bias levels, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 13 and their dependents, claims 2
through 8, 14, 15, and 18.
Regarding claim 16, the language in question, "for
providing a plurality of substrate bias voltages," appears
twice in the body of the claim. Therefore, it is a limitation
which must be considered and met for the reference to
anticipate the claim. As Alvarez has already been found
lacking in this regard, we must reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the rejection of claims 13 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We have reversed the
rejection of claims 1 through 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
through 16 and 18 is affirmed-in-part.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007