Appeal No. 95-2861
Application 08/062,237
To begin with, as conceded by the Examiner . . .
the base cell of Masuoka is different from that of
Toshikazu. In Masuoka, the floating gates 108a and
108b are disposed laterally surrounding the control
gate 106 (Fig. 3 of Masuoka). In Tashikazu [sic,
Toshikazu], the control gates 30 and 31 are disposed
laterally surrounding the floating gate 25 (Fig. 2 of
Tpshikazu [sic, Toshikazu). In addition, the Examiner
points out that the control gates 114a and 106 of
Masuoka are orthogonally disposed. Notwithstanding the
Examiner's allegation, combining this feature of having
the control gates orthogonally disposed, with the base
cell of Toshikazu, as suggested by the Examiner, would
still not satisfy the criteria as set forth in
independent claims 4 and 7.
We agree. Appellant correctly argues (Brief, page 7) that
Toshikazu modified by Masuoka would have the top control gate 27
"disposed atop only the floating gate 25, and not atop the pair
of control gates 30 and 31." Moreover, the appellant correctly
argues on the same page of the Brief that the combined reference
teachings would not "include the end segments of floating gate 25
disposed between the pair of control gates 30 and 31 and the top
control gate 27," and "would involve significant modifications
and would also be deemed improper." In view of these differences
between the teachings of the applied references and the claimed
invention, we also agree with the appellant's arguments (Brief,
pages 7 through 9) that the programming and erasure of the
claimed device differs from the programming and erasure of the
vastly different devices in the applied references. Accordingly,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007