Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
nothing indefinite about the term “independent” when viewed as
such. Therefore, while we understand the examiner’s confusion
and frustration with the term “independent” in view of
appellant’s arguments and refusal to admit that the term
referred to a process limitation, our finding that this term
does, indeed, refer to a process limitation obviates the
rejections under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
With regard to claim 5, again, we understand the
examiner’s frustration but will, nonetheless, not sustain the
rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs. While the “insulating region” called for
by claim 5 does not appear to be shown in the finished product
in Figure 1, insulating region 48 is clearly within conductive
gate 42 as shown, for example, in Figures 8, 10 and 11.
Appellant also refers us to page 10, line 14 and page 13, line
10, as well as Figure 12, for support for the insulating
region. Reference to the cited pages in the specification
discloses only “thin oxide 48” at page 10 and nothing about
element 48 on line 10 of page 13. Also, while appellant
refers us to Figure 12, there is no element therein labeled
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007