Appeal No. 2006-1181
Application No. 10/393,718
and the answer (mailed January 13, 2005) for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered (37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 1032, the Examiner
relies on Wristers for showing all the claimed features except
for a description of the characteristics of the semiconductor
device and creation of a depletion region when the first voltage
is applied (answer, page 4). The examiner further relies on Wolf
for describing the formation of a depletion region in the
substrate in an area adjacent the isolation layer upon
application of a voltage that exceeds a threshold voltage (id.).
2 The rejection of claim 19 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, for insufficient written description, stated in the final rejection
(mailed May 11, 2005), has been withdrawn by the Examiner (answer, page 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007