Appeal No. 95-2665
Application 07/999,609
Although the charging of the floating gate from the
substrate and the discharging of the floating gate into the
substrate in the wherein clause at the end of independent
claim 9 on appeal is relatively broadly recited and therefore
encompasses any and all programming and/or deprogramming
approaches from the prior art either admitted by appellant at
specification page 1 or represented by the references relied upon
by the examiner, we remain unconvinced of the obviousness of
physically extending the second control trace on top of the first
control trace of Guterman to reach even independent claims 8 and
9 on appeal. In other words, we are left at a loss as to
determine why the artisan would have extended the erase electrode
130 over the programming electrode 110 in Figure 1 of Guterman
based upon the teachings and suggestions and line of reasoning of
the examiner as to Hasunuma, Komori and Ma.
Page 6 of the Reply Brief raises two questions which have
not been answered by the examiner in any supplemental answer.
We are unable to answer them ourselves. The first question
relates to the substance of the last paragraph of this opinion.
Appellant again asserts that Guterman teaches away from doing so
as set forth in the original pages of the brief, which portion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007