Appeal No. 96-0285
Application 07/900,528
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 1-19 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the
view that the disclosure of Lechaton does not fully meet the
invention as set forth in claim 12. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-19 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
In claims 1-2, 10, and 12, the scope
of “formed according to both CMOS and
self-aligned double poly bipolar
technologies” is not understood. Thus
the claims are indefinite.
The claims fail to set forth the
specific process for forming the CMOS
and self-aligned double poly bipolar
transistor technologies.
The scope of the “technologies”
encompassed by the present claims is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007