Appeal No. 1999-2739
Application No. 08/891,127
polysilicon with a rapid thermal annealing process (Brief, page
3). A copy of illustrative independent claim 1 is attached
as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Patel et al. (Patel) 4,321,283 Mar. 23, 1982
Takeuchi 5,097,300 Mar. 17, 1992
Lee et al. (Lee) 5,658,815 Aug. 19, 1997
(filed Jan. 2, 1996)
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 16-21, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Takeuchi in view
of Patel (Answer, page 3). Claims 2, 14, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Takeuchi in view
of Patel and Lee (Answer, page 5). We reverse all of the 2
rejections on appeal for reasons which follow.
OPINION
2The examiner has not repeated the final rejection of
claims 2, 14 and 26 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 (see the Final rejection, Paper No. 5; the Advisory
Action, Paper No. 7; and the Brief, pages 5-6). This
rejection has not been specifically withdrawn (see the
Answer). However, rejections that are not repeated in the
Answer are considered as withdrawn. See Paperless Accounting
v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231 USPQ
649, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007