Appeal No. 2004-0627
Application No. 09/766,965
Appellants have neither grouped nor argued separately the
claims on appeal (see page 4 of Brief). Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims is free of
reversible error. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
As set forth by the examiner, appellants apparently concede
that Williams discloses an MOS device that comprises regions 155,
125 and 129 that meet the requirements for appellants' first
region of a second conductivity type formed in the substrate, and
that regions 163a/169a of Williams anticipate the claimed contact
region. Appellants also state that the contact region of
Williams "is arguably coupled to the channel under gate 145a
through electrode 169a and source region 159a" (page 6 of Brief,
third paragraph). Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that
the dispositive issue on appeal is whether Williams describes the
claimed "field oxide region formed between the second region and
the contact region." On this point appellants present the
following argument:
As can be seen in FIG. 25O of the reference, there is
no field oxide region between p-type source region 159a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007