Appeal No. 1995-3416
Application No. 08/127,707
beneath the electrically insulating layer. Second, appellants
have not defined the bird's beak region as having any clear
line of demarcation beneath the insulating layer.
Regarding separately argued claim 27 which defines the
substrate as P-type, Kurakami discloses that substrate 208 is
a P-type semiconductor (column 5, lines 34 and 35).
As for separately argued claims 28 and 29, which recite
"the step of providing a layer of silicon nitride extending
over a portion of said bird's beak," the examiner has not
pointed to any disclosure of Kurakami that describes this
feature. Indeed, it does not appear that the examiner has
responded to the separate argument for claims 28 and 29 at
page 6 of the principal brief. Accordingly, we are
constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 28
and 29.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 26 and 27 is affirmed, whereas the
rejection of claims 28 and 29 is reversed. The examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007