Appeal No. 96-0665
Application No. 08/179,887
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We affirm.
The examiner sets forth his reasoning regarding the
rejection of claim 16, at pages 2-3 of the answer. Appellant
makes only two arguments regarding the instant claim limitations
vis à vis that which is disclosed by Adam. First, appellant
argues that claim 16 distinguishes over the embodiments of Figs.
3, 4 and 5 of the reference because of the claimed negative
limitation of the floating gate structure “consisting solely of
. . .” Second, appellant argues that with regard to Adam’s Fig.
5, the n+-doped source/erase region 25 and drain/write region 16
have different conductivity type than the p+-doped diffusion
region 4 while claim 16 calls for the source, drain and control
gate regions to be all of the same conductivity type.
Addressing appellant’s first argument, we have no problem
with negative limitations appearing in the claim. However, we do
not view the claim language to be as restrictive as appellant
apparently believes the language to be.
We apply the claim language of interest to Figure 5 of Adam,
as depicted on page 4 of the reply brief. Identifying the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007