Appeal No. 1998-1097
Application No. 08/557,484
lines 16-20 of Appellant’s specification as parasitic junction
capacitances. In view of the above, since all of the
limitations of independent claim 1 are disclosed by Senuma,
the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 2 based on Senuma, we
note that, while we found Appellant’s arguments to be
unpersuasive with respect to appealed claim 1, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claim 2. Appellant’s
argument (Brief, page 4), with which we agree, is that,
contrary to the express claim language, Senuma’s bottom
electrode, identified as element 34 by the Examiner, is not
“formed over” Senuma’s second layer 35. While we do not
dispute the Examiner’s contention that the term “over” is
subject to possible varying interpretations when considering
the structural orientation of an applied reference, we can
conceive of no orientation of the disclosed structure of
Senuma, and the Examiner has pointed to none, which would meet
all of the limitations of appealed claim 2. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007