Appeal No. 96-1656
Application 08/182,809
OPINION
The examiner has entered three different rejections.
First, claims 22 and 24-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Morita. Second, claims 22-23 and 30-36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 as anticipated by, or
unpatentable over, Morita. Third, claims 22-23, 37-39, and 41-45
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morita
in view of Mazzali.
We will address the three rejections separately.
Anticipation of Claims 22 and 24-29 by Morita
We sustain the examiner’s first rejection (Examiner’s
Answer at 3-5) primarily for the reasons of the examiner, with
the following amplifying comments.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
In the present case the claimed “portion” reads on the
portion between, but not including, Morita’s elements 32. Within
this portion, active devices 36b are separated only by oxidation
region 38 and insulating region 40. Appellants’ arguments about
substituting a two-part field oxide for LOCOS isolation are not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007