Appeal No. 1997-3484
Application 08/089,359
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takikawa and Itoh.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14) (pages referred to as
"EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's position and to
the Amended Appeal Brief (Paper No. 16) (pages referred to
as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially, we conclude that the Examiner erred in the
claim interpretation that nothing in claim 1 prevents using
different labels on different halves of the structure in
Takikawa. It is true that the claimed "material structure"
comprising a substrate and four layers, by itself, does not
positively require that the layers are coextensive with each
other over the whole area of the substrate and does not
recite the order of the layers. If it were just this
limitation at issue, we would agree that it is only
necessary that there be a structure corresponding to the
substrate and the four layers; e.g., one region could have a
substrate, a low-noise channel layer, and a wide bandgap
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007