Appeal No. 1998-2962
Application No. 08/485,079
Moreover, appellants do not positively argue the double patenting rejection,
observing only that arguments cannot yet be made because the claims of Application
Serial No. 08/474,612 “may change” [brief-page 4]. Appellants parenthetically muse that
the claims of 08/474,612 are “directed to equivalence of the crystal orientations of the gate
finger sidewalls and the drain surface and this has no suggestion of the (100) within 0.5° of
claims 10-13" [brief-page 4]. However, this does not address the issue of disclosure of
the instant claimed subject matter in 08/474,612 in the Schneller context.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10-13 under double patenting is sustained.
With regard to the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Lüth
and Rode, we will also sustain this rejection.
The examiner indicates that the difference between the instant claimed invention
and that disclosed by Lüth is the former’s recitation of a substrate that is tilted within 0.5
degrees from the (100) crystal plane. However, the examiner relies on Rode, which
appears to teach the claimed range of orientation [see claim 4 of Rode] and the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to tilt Lüth’s substrate within 0.5 degrees from
the (100) crystal plane as suggested by Rode.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007