Appeal No. 96-2722
Application 08/281,168
and 1, John Wiley & Sons (1973). Accordingly, we cannot disagree with the examiner’s4
characterization of Bennett’s FET 40 as being a metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS) FET. This is
especially so in light of appellants’ admission at pages 40 to 41 of their specification that other types of
insulated gate transistors may be used in place of MOS transistors.
We cannot agree with appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 7, 9, and 11 to 12; Reply Brief,
pages 2 to 4) that claims 1 to 53 are non-obvious because the circuit elements of the claims are formed
in the same fabrication step and/or because transistors Q8-Q10 are formed at the same time as Q1.
Simply put, our review of the claims on appeal reveals no process claims, only apparatus claims. While
claim 1 on appeal recites transistors being made by "the process step of fabricating" one type of
transistor and another type of transistor, we note that the claims as broadly interpreted do not require
any certain order or timing of process steps or fabrication of the circuit elements. We agree with the
examiner (Answer, pages 8 to 9) that the present invention on appeal is not directed toward a process
and that no specific details exist in the claims which relate to a process improvement for chip
fabrication.
With respect to claims 26 to 35, appellants argue (Brief, page 13; Reply Brief, page 4) that the
salient features of these claims of plural transistor gates being connected in common is neither taught nor
4Copies of these references are provided as an attachment to this decision.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007