Appeal No. 1998-1097
Application No. 08/557,484
with an n-type material), with the first doped region formed
in an SiO layer (32) which in turn is formed on a silicon
2
substrate (31). Like Appellants, we do not find such a
configuration in Ito. While it appears from the illustration
in Figure 4 that, as asserted by the Examiner, Ito shows two
doped regions 18 and 19, we find no disclosure in Ito of the
formation of the first doped layer in the SiO layer as
2
required by claim 11. Therefore, since all of the claimed
limitations are not disclosed by Ito, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 11 and 12 is not sustained.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection based on Senuma, we have sustained the
rejection of claim 1, but have not sustained the rejection of
claims 2, 4, 7, and 8. We have not sustained the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 2-8 based on Miwa.
Lastly, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection based on Ito, we have sustained the rejection of
claims 9 and 10, but have not sustained the rejection of
claims 11 and 12. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-12 is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007