Ex parte CHANG - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-0343                                                        
          Application 08/439,209                                                      


               the first conductive member is a gate for a first                      
          transistor and a control gate for a second transistor;                      


               the second conductive member lies adjacent to the second               
          floating gate and overlies a second portion of the channel                  
          region that is not covered by the first or second floating                  
          gates; and                                                                  
               the second conductive member is a control gate for a                   
          third transistor and a gate for a fourth transistor; and                    
               the first and second conductive members are spaced apart               
          from each other; and                                                        
               a third conductive member overlying a third portion of                 
          the channel region that lies between the first and second                   
          conductive members, wherein the third conductive member is a                
          select gate for the memory structure.                                       
               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Ma et al. (Ma)             5,278,439           Jan. 11, 1994                
          (filed Aug. 29, 1991)                                                       
               Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 16-25, and 28-33 stand rejected under                
          35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by the disclosure of                
          Ma.  We note that claims 20-22 depend from claim 1 which has                
          been allowed by the examiner.  Therefore, the rejection of                  
          these claims based upon the disclosure of Ma is clearly                     
          inappropriate.        Rather than repeat the arguments of                   
          appellant or the examiner, we make reference to the brief and               


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007