Appeal No. 1999-1455
Application 08/753,556
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
1
Okuzumi (Japanese Patent) 62-147779 July 1, 1987
Runyan et al. (Runyan), Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Processing Technology,
pp. 40-41, 162, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (1990).
Claims 8 through 10 stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112.
Additionally, claims 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Okuzumi in view of Runyan.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections of all claims on appeal and institute a new ground of
rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 of all claims on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 8 through 10 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner’s view is that there is no way to determine what is meant by
the recitation of a “prescribed minimum” channel length or width of these
1Our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation provided by the
Scientific and Technical Information Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of
the translation is enclosed with this decision.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007