Appeal No. 96-1449
Application 08/188,630
The rejection states that because the final product is a
conductive storage electrode, it does not make a difference
whether or not the storage electrode was covered with an
"enlarging layer." We disagree with the examiner's
reasoning.
We agree with appellant's rebuttal to the examiner's
rejection (Br4):
This argument ignores the fact that the enlarging layer
will be detectable as a separate and distinct layer
from the storage electrode. The layers may or may not
be formed of the same material. Even if they are of
the same material, their interface can be found by
crystallography or other means.
A storage electrode having an "enlarging layer" is not the
same physical product as a storage electrode without an
enlarging layer. The examiner's statement that "[t]he
storage and the enlarging layer are made of the same
material" (Paper No. 10, page 3; EA4), is not accurate. The
claims do not require the materials to be the same and
appellant has pointed out that even if they were, the
structure of the enlarging layer would be distinguishable
from the structure of the storage electrode. The fact that
two structures, a storage electrode covered by an enlarging
layer and a storage electrode of the same overall size but
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007