Ex parte MALHI - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-1624                                                            
          Application No. 08/384,816                                                      


               a second insulating material extending from the bottom                     
          surface of the semiconductor substrate to the noncontinuous                     
          isolation layer.                                                                
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                      
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                  
          Cogan                      4,860,081                      Aug. 22,              
          1989                                                                            
          Tamagawa                   5,045,900                      Sep. 03,              
          1991                                                                            
                                     (effective filing date Oct. 27, 1988)                
               Claims 19 through 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35                        
          U.S.C.                                                                          
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Tamagawa in view of Cogan.                     
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,                  
          mailed October 31, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning                  
          in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper                   
          No. 18, filed May 6, 1996) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21,                       
          filed January 7, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.                  
                                         OPINION                                          
               As a preliminary matter we note that appellant indicates                   
          on page 3 of the Brief that the claims are not to stand or                      
          fall together.  Appellant, however, discusses claims 19 and 25                  
          together, and, therefore, fails to provide arguments as to the                  
          separate patentability of claim 25 in accordance with 37 CFR                    
                                            3                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007