Appeal No. 95-3779
Application No. 08/191,063
Moreover, claims 1 through 15 and 21 stand further rejected
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 with Koeppe being relied upon for evidence
of the obviousness of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 13, 15 and
21, the examiner adding Sawase with regard to claims 5 and 14.
Rather than reiterate the positions of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection based on the written
description portion of 35 U.S.C. ' 112. The examiner takes the
position that none of the original structures look alike because
the specification states that the structures “may be made to look
alike” [page 4-line 34-35] and this is not a statement of
certainty. The examiner then points to connections 20, 22, 32
and 36 in Figures 1b, 2b and 5, stating that they do not look
alike and concludes that since the claims require the two
circuits to look alike, there must be a lack of support for this
subject matter in the claims.
The examiner’s position is misplaced. While the examiner is
correct in the assessment that the connections in the various
figures of the drawing do not look alike, this is a crucial part
of the invention. As described throughout the specification, the
layouts of the logic circuits do look alike to the reverse
engineer. It is the dopant implant interconnections which do not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007