Appeal No. 95-4174
Application 08/165,553
We turn, finally, to the rejection of claims 14 through
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Uchida in view
of Homma. We will not sustain this rejection for the reasons,
supra, with regard to the rejections relying on Homma, Schaber
and Soejima. That is, neither Uchida nor Homma is directed to
a single polysilicon layer BiCMOS structure and the examiner
does not deny this. The examiner merely wants to ignore this
limitation because it appears in the preamble. As indicated
supra, it is our view that this recitation breaths life and
meaning into the claim and is a specific claim limitation
which cannot be ignored. Accordingly, since neither Uchida
nor Homma teaches or suggests this limitation, the claimed
subject matter cannot be considered obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have not sustained the rejections of claims 14 through
21 under either 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, or 35
U.S.C. § 103. We have also not sustained the rejection of
claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over either Homma or
Soejima. Nor have we sustained the rejection of claims 14
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Schaber. We
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007