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
r
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007