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