Appeal No. 1997-1757
Application No. 08/450,145
provide teachings which also are applicable to the embodiments
of Figures 15A, 15B and 15C. Moreover, it appears that the
claim language to which the examiner raises the objection was
in the claims as originally filed and an originally filed
claim is its own support. Accordingly, it is difficult to
comprehend how the examiner can contend that there is no
adequate support for the claim language in question.
Turning to the rejection of the claims based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the examiner contends that the claim
language, “substantially all of said current path
portion...serving as a path for most of said main current,” is
vague and indefinite. More particularly, the examiner asks,
at the top of page 4 of the answer, “how can all of the
current path portion have the different carrier lifetime that
[sic, than] the remaining portion of the semiconductor layer”?
The claim language is consistent with the disclosure which
makes it very clear, e.g., see Figure 3, how the current path
portion has a “different carrier lifetime” than the remaining
portion of the semiconductor layer. The current path portion
5 does not have the radiation defects 7 depicted in the
remaining portion of the semiconductor layer. Accordingly, we
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007