Appeal No. 95-2576
Application 07/962,952
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The Examiner states on page 6 of the answer that "Groves
does not explicitly show the step of controlling the applied
voltage as a function of said channel lengths." The Examiner
states on the same page that Grove shows the device under test is
connected to the test apparatus via various wires. The Examiner
further states that the "feature of controlling the applied
voltage as a function of the wire lengths is inherent in the
operation of the Grove's test apparatus in order for Grove's wire
to usually stay in the safe region." On page 12 of the answer,
the Examiner argues that Appellants' claimed term "channel" does
not exclude the inclusion of the Grove's wire lengths.
Appellants argue on pages 2 through 4 of the reply brief
that the Examiner has improperly interpreted "channel length" as
recited in Appellants' claims as including a wire length.
Appellants argue that the definition of "channel lengths" cannot
include wire lengths. Appellants argue that the Appellants'
specification, at page 6, defines a channel as "... an end-to-end
electrical path through a semiconductor body, for example, a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007