Appeal No. 1999-2006
Application No. 08/561,960
source and drain region as taught by Paterson would have been
obvious ... because Paterson discloses the same nonvolatile
memory device structure as Matsushita ..." However, we agree
with Appellant that Paterson does not cure
the deficiencies noted above in regard to meeting the claimed
limitations of claim 1 which are incorporated into claim 2
because of its dependency. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claims 3 to 5
over Matsushita in view of Paterson.
In conclusion, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 and 6 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 2 to 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007