Appeal No. 95-0675
Application No. 08/070,487
programming area 25 between PN junctions 14a and 14b.
However, the appealed claims require the exclusive irradiation
within one and only one of the two PN junctions, and we agree
with appellants that the reference does not describe such
within the meaning of § 102. The examiner reasons at page 6
of the Answer that "'irradiating exclusively a programming
area within one and only one of said PN junctions' does not
preclude irradiation of a second programming area containing a
second PN junction," as in the case of the reference where two
PN junctions are irradiated. However, although the
"comprising" language of the appealed claims "opens" the
claims to a second irradiation step, the claims nevertheless
require that the recited irradiation step be performed
exclusively within one and only one of said PN junctions.
Inasmuch as the reference irradiation exposes two PN
junctions, 14a and 14b, the claim requirement is not described
by the reference.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejection of the
appealed claims over Aswell in view of the admitted prior art.
Aswell discloses programming a semiconductor device by
damaging an area with a laser. However, Aswell does not teach
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007