Appeal No. 2001-0555
Application No. 09/026,093
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The claims on appeal are rejected under three different
combinations of references.
Liu
In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and
6-13 over Liu (answer at pages 3 and 4), Appellants argue (brief
at page 6) that “in the applied reference, [Liu] the gate length
is reported to be 0.5 µm or less. Thus, length of the Liu gate
is approximately 5 times larger than the presently claimed gate
length; . . . .”
The Examiner responds (answer at page 11) that
[w]hile it is agreed that the gate electrode
of Liu may be 0.5 µm in length, that is merely the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007