Appeal No. 1996-0478
Application No. 08/171,769
hearing appellant’s representative further argued that in addition to the pending claims
including the gate insulating layer extending beyond the gate electrode that the
pending claims were independent and distinct from the patent claims since the patent
claims included a further limitation concerning inverting the conductivity type of the
source and drain using the gate electrode as a mask, which was not required by the
present claims. We agree with appellant that the pending claims are independent and
distinct from the patent claims. We note that the examiner merely concludes that
double patenting exists and does not present any comparison of the pending claims
with those of the patent. Moreover, from the evidence before us in this appeal, it
appears to us that the patent claims and the application claims are directed to two
separate inventions, and that the issuance of the application claims will not extend the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007