Ex parte SHINOHARA - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1998-1097                                                        
          Application No. 08/557,484                                                  

           102(b) rejection of independent claim 2, nor of rejected                  
          claims 4, 7, and 8 dependent thereon, based on Senuma.                      
               Our next consideration is the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.                    
          102(e) rejection of claims 2-8 based on Miwa.  With respect to              
          independent claim 2, the Examiner has attempted (Answer, page               
          4) to read the various limitations on Miwa, making particular               
          reference to the illustration in Figure 12 of Miwa.                         
          Appellant’s primary argument in response asserts that element               
          199 in Miwa, identified by the Examiner as corresponding to                 
          the claimed “potential control electrode,” is not in fact                   
          electrically connected with the first layer to control the                  
          first layer to be at an arbitrary potential as claimed.                     
               After careful review of the Miwa reference in light of                 
          the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s               
          position as stated in the Brief.  While we do not dispute the               
          Examiner’s contention that Miwa’s NPN transistor T  would                   
          require connection to a source of potential for proper                      
          operation, such a generalized statement does not address the                
          particulars of the language of appealed claim 2.  A review of               
          the semiconductor structure illustrated in Figure 12 of Miwa                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007