Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
The rejection of Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the specification allegedly does not
provide support for "a second plurality of conductive layers .
. . in electrical contact with said first plurality of
conductive layers" [answer, page 3]. We reverse this
rejection.
Appellants argue the specification teaches that the
embodiment shown in Figure 2G, when combined with the
embodiment shown in Figures 5A-5F, teaches "a second plurality
of conductive layers" [brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner argues
that the specification does not teach the combination argued
by appellants. The examiner does not dispute that the
combination asserted by appellants would teach a "second
plurality of conductive layers."
The specification as filed states, with respect to
Figure 4 which features conductors 16, 17 and 18, that the
resistance of source/drain regions 7, 8 and 9 "may be lower if
a particular conductive region is incorporated as discussed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007