Appeal No. 1997-2034
Application No. 08/347,788
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 through 18, 23, and 26
through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Numata in view of Yoshida or Lee.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 through 18, 23, and 26
through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoshida or Lee.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed December 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 17, filed October 22, 1996) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 19, filed January 15, 1997) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 through 18, 23, and 26 through 30.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 23 require two natural field
effect transistors. Claim 15 requires two field effect
transistors which "do not include any dopant concentration in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007