Appeal No. 1997-1038
Application 08/077,926
the showing of a first fuse 27 interconnecting the metal wiring 25a by means of a wiring
29a. As to the particulars of the second fuse interposed between the signal generating
means 17, 18 and the semi-conductor circuit (generally the ICs 102a of Figure 8), there
appears to be no clear depiction of the drawings of any claimed second fuse of claim 23.
However, appellant is correct in recognizing that the specification at page 25, lines 3
through 6 teaches by written description alone that there is at least one other or a second
fuse connected in the manner claimed. This may be taken as the fuse taught at the output
terminal 35 of the waveform generator 18 and also “in the course of the wiring 29c,” which
appears to indicate that the wiring 29c itself would be considered a second fuse because
its width is identical to the width comprising a normally depicted fuse 27, that is, a relatively
narrow width compared to the other wiring layers and contact hole showings.
Therefore, the disputed recitations noted by the examiner as to independent claim 1
and dependent claim 23 have been adequately shown by appellant and noted here by us
to have been possessed by appellant in the specification as filed. As such, the rejection of
the noted claims under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the rejection of certain claims under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, the examiner's view is, that clause (b) in claim 20 relating to a second wiring
is not clear as to how a single second wiring is commonly connected to the first wiring of
the plurality of semiconductor devices. Without belaboring the issue, a showing in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007