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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007