Appeal No. 95-4174
Application 08/165,553
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Homma, of claims 14
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schaber,
and of claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Soejima. We will not sustain these rejections
because, as appellants point out, Homma, Schaber and Soejima
are not directed to a “single polysilicon layer BiCMOS
structure,” as claimed. The examiner does not deny this but
prefers to ignore this limitation because it appears in the
preamble and the “preamble is denied the effect of a
limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the
portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-
contained description of the structure not depending for
completeness upon the introductory clause,” citing Kropa v.
Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). [answer-page
14].
We disagree with the examiner. The recitation in the
preamble of “A single polysilicon layer BiCMOS structure”
gives “life and meaning” to the body of the claim because it
sets forth the parameters in which the rest of the structure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007