Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
positions (Answer, pages 3 through 8). We will instead adopt
the examiner’s reasoning as our own, and merely limit our
decision to a response to appellants’ arguments.
Appellants’ response to the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection is an offer to submit a terminal
disclaimer to overcome the rejection (Brief, pages 7 and 8).
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 17
through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 is sustained because such a
response does not overcome the rejection.
Appellants argue that the polysilicon or amorphous
silicon layer 88 (Figure 6) in Matsueda is a semiconductor,
and does not become “electrically conductive” until a gate
voltage is applied thereto (Brief, pages 9 through 13). The
claims on appeal do not preclude the layer 88 from becoming
“electrically conductive” upon the application of a bias
voltage. The claims on appeal do not require an “electrically
conductive” material that is “able at all times to function as
a capacitor electrode during both on and off conditions,” and
the “electrically conductive” material is not “degeneratively
doped” (Brief, page 9). More importantly, no amount of
capacitance is claimed by appellants (Brief, page 11). Thus,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007