Appeal No. 1999-1855
Application 08/738,916
enhancement mode transistors formed in said grounded
p-type substrate.
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art (APA) in
figure 3 and the specification at page 3.
The pending rejections are:
Claims 8-10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of an enabling disclosure.
Claims 8-10, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the APA in figure 3 of the
specification.2
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 30) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 41) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 38) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the
reply brief (Paper No. 42) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for
a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Enablement
It is not known why the Examiner chose to rely on2
§ 102(b). It is not clear to us what subsection of § 102 the
APA falls under. What is clear is that Appellant has admitted
that figure 3 is prior art of some type. See In re Garfinkel,
437 F.2d 1000, 1004 n.2, 168 USPQ 659, 662 n.2 (CCPA 1971).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007