Appeal No. 1997-3161
Application No. 08/450,553
least one of the source and drain, whereby electrons are
injected into the floating gate when both the first and
second voltages are applied.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:1
McElroy 4,503,524 Mar. 05,
1985
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 4,953,928 Sep. 04,
1990
Terasawa et al. (Terasawa) 5,022,000 Jun. 04,
1991
(Filed Sep. 06, 1989)
Gill et al. (Gill) 5,047,981 Sep. 10,
1991
(Filed Jun. 30, 1989)
Haddad et al. (Haddad) 5,077,691 Dec. 31,
1991
(Filed Oct. 23, 1989)
Santin 5,122,985 Jun. 16,
1992
(Filed Apr. 16, 1990)
Gill et al. (Gill) 5,134,449 Jul. 28,
1992
(Filed Feb. 26, 1991)
D’Arrigo et al. (D’Arrigo) 5,168,335 Dec. 01,
1992
(Filed Aug. 06, 1991)
McElroy et al (McElroy) 5,177,705 Jan. 05,
1993
(Filed Sep. 05, 1989)
Gill et al. (Gill) 5,187,683 Feb. 16,
1993
(Filed Aug. 31, 1990)
D’Arrigo et al. (D’Arrigo) 5,265,052 Nov. 23,
1With the exception of Haddad and Anderson, the listed
references were not applied in the prior art rejection but,
rather, only cited as evidence in support for the Examiner’s
position as to Appellant’s alleged unconventional usage of the
term “erase.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007