Ex parte SHINOHARA - Page 9

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

                     reveals a clear demarcation between the NPN transistor and the                                                                                                    
                     MISC capacitor.  Absent any illuminating disclosure in Miwa,                                                                                                      
                     which the Examiner has not pointed to, we fail to see any                                                                                                         
                     support for the Examiner’s conclusion that connection of                                                                                                          
                     Miwa’s NPN transistor to a potential source would control a                                                                                                       
                     first layer associated with the MISC capacitor to an arbitrary                                                                                                    
                     potential as required by the language of appealed claim 2.                                                                                                        
                     Therefore, since all of the limitations are not disclosed by                                                                                                      
                     Miwa, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.                                                                                                                                    
                      102(b) rejection of independent claim 2, as well as claims                                                                                                      
                     3-8 dependent thereon, is not sustained.                                                                                                                          
                                Lastly, we turn to a consideration of the Examiner’s                                                                                                   
                     35 U.S.C.  102(b) rejection of claims 9-12 based on Ito.                                                                  2                                      
                     With respect to independent claim 9, the Examiner has                                                                                                             
                     indicated (Answer, page 5) how the various limitations are                                                                                                        
                     read on the disclosure of Ito, in particular the illustration                                                                                                     
                     in Ito’s Figure 4.  In response, Appellant’s sole argument in                                                                                                     
                     the Brief asserts the lack of disclosure in Ito of a doped                                                                                                        

                                2 The recitations of “the first dielectric film” at lines                                                                                              
                     6 and 7 of claims 9 and 11, respectively, lack clear                                                                                                              
                     antecedent reference since earlier recitations in claims 9 and                                                                                                    
                     11 set forth “a first dielectric layer.”                                                                                                                          

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007