Ex parte YOSHIDA et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 95-1555                                                          
          Application 07/871,530                                                      

          fall together.   However, in the argument section of the brief,             
          Appellants fail to point out reasons as to why the particular               
          claim limitations for claims 11, 14 and 15 are further patentably           
          distinguished over the applied art.  For these claims, Appellants           
          rely on the limitations as recited in Appellants’ claim 10.  37             
          CFR  1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988 states:                            
               For each ground of rejection which appellant contests                  
               and which applies to more than one claim, it will be                   
               presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall                        
               together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in                 
               the appropriate part or parts of the arguments under                   
               subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant presents                 
               reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected                     
               claims to be separately patentable.                                    
          As per 37 CFR  1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988, which was               
          controlling at the time of Appellants’ filing the brief, we will,           
          thereby, consider Appellants’ claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 to stand             
          or fall together, with claim 10 being considered the                        
          representative claim.                                                       
               In regard to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 under           
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya and Anderson,           
          we note that only the limitation that is in dispute is “a layer             
          of semiconductor material of said first conductivity type but of            
          increased dopant concentration in relation to said substrate                
          overlying said substrate of said first conductivity type” as                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007