Appeal No. 1996-2947
Application 08/203,685
We reverse the above noted rejections of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103, essentially for the reasons set
forth by appellant in the brief.
The examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claim 1 on appeal in light of the
teachings and showings of Okumura's Figure 16D. Page 4 of the
answer indicates that the examiner recognizes that “Okumura
differs from the claimed invention by not having a pair of
conductive spacers formed on the p type regions and formed
adjacent to the gate electrode.”
The answer continues by alleging that as to the subject
matter of independent claim 1 on appeal it would have been
obvious to the artisan “to have a pair of conductive spacers
because they have an electrical characteristic similar to that
of the left and right portions of the gate electrode of
Okumura.” As indicated at page 4 of the brief, appellant
construes this reasoning as it would have been obvious to the
artisan to have added or to have included a pair of the
claimed conductive spacers according to the examiner's
reasoning. The examiner's reasoning is faulty because it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007