Appeal No. 95-2928
Application No. 07/769,185
Lineback, J.R., “Triple Diffusion Doubles RAM Speed”,
Electronics, pp. 54, 61, (1983).
Claims 18 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites
Bergonzoni and Liou in view of Lineback.2
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the evidence before us,
including, inter alia, the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, the declarations of Dr. James Cunningham and
the applied references and we conclude therefrom that the
instant claimed subject matter would not have been
2 Because of a reference to a patent to Cham in the
examiner’s communication of February 9, 1995 (Paper No.
18), appellant questioned, in the supplemental reply
brief of March 9, 1995 (Paper No. 20) whether a new
ground of rejection , relying on Cham, was possibly being
applied. However, the examiner made clear, in Paper No.
22, of April 17, 1995, that no new ground of rejection is
made and that Cham was referenced only to show that
masked implants were known in the art even though, in the
examiner’s view, “the method of masked implantation used
as evidence by Appellant in the Declaration and the Reply
Brief is not at issue here, only the structure claimed”
[Paper No. 18]. Accordingly, Cham is not relied upon by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007