Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
the range of 15-300 cm /Vsec and a hole mobility in the range2
of 10-200 cm /Vsec.2
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ohwada et al. (Ohwada) 4,818,077 Apr. 4, 1989
Mimura et al. (Mimura) 4,954,855 Sep. 4, 1990
Claims 22-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Ohwada in view of
Mimura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
At the outset, we note that the propriety of the
examiner’s objection to the drawings is not within our
jurisdiction. Appellants must settle this question with the
examiner or by petition to the Commissioner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007