Appeal No. 95-4641 Application No. 08/023,122 We turn first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We will not sustain this rejection. The examiner makes the following observations at page 4 of the answer: In claim 1, line 8, and claim 3, lines 6- 7, claims 7, 9, 11, [sic, and] 13, the phrase "first gate side wall" is unclear whether it is being referred to the first gate side wall insulating film. In claim 1, lines 14-17, it is unclear how the low density diffusion layer of a second conduction type [sic, is?] formed on the semiconductor below and around the gate electrode. In claim 3, lines 3-6, it is unclear how the high density diffusion layer [sic, is?] formed on the semiconductor substrate below and around the first gate side wall insulating film. In claim 6, lines 2-4, it is unclear how a high density diffusion layer [sic, is?] formed on the semiconductor substrate and below and around the gate electrode. Regarding the examiner's problem with the recitation of "first gate side wall," appellants amended this language to read "a first gate side wall film" in the amendment filed September 22, 1994 (Paper No. 9) in response to the final rejection; yet the examiner maintains the rejection without explanation as to why this amendment does not overcome the rejection. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007