Appeal No. 96-0665
Application No. 08/179,887
portion from being located over the control gate region and also
some other region such as region 4 of Adam.
Turning now to appellant’s second argument, claim 16
requires a substrate of a first conductivity type. Adam shows a
substrate 3 of p-conductivity type. Claim 16 also requires the
source, drain and control gate regions to be of a second
conductivity type. Adam shows source, drain and control gate
regions to be of n-conductivity type. Thus, Adam clearly meets
the claim language. There is nothing in the claim which
precludes some other region, e.g., diffusion region 4 of Adam,
from being of a first conductivity type and, as explained supra,
there is nothing in the claim which precludes Adam’s diffusion
region 4 at all. Accordingly, appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(b)/103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007