Appeal No. 96-3889
Application 08/336,956
drain contact members. Furthermore, the Examiner erred in
reading Appellants' claim
language on Yamaguchi element 9 because element 9 is shown in
Figure 10 and disclosed in column 5 as being an interlayer
insulation film for gates 8 and 18. Therefore, we find that
Yamaguchi fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 11,
and thereby the claim is not anticipated by Yamaguchi.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claim 11 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007