Appeal No. 1999-1623
Application 08/474,239
[Kouji](Paper No. 4). This reference is combined with Birrittella in Paper No. 8 rejecting
claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Finally, also set forth in Paper No. 4, is a separate
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 25-28, 35, 37 and 38 in light of Nakazato in view
of Shoji [Kouji].
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
At the outset, the examiner’s reliance upon rejections set forth in prior Papers No. 4
and No. 8, as well as the Advisory Action in Paper No. 10, as expressed at pages 2 and 3
of the answer is highly disfavored. This approach appears to violate MPEP
§ 1208, topic A, which only permits the examiner to rely upon a single Office action for a
statement of the rejection and instructs the examiner to avoid references to other Office
actions.
All claims on appeal relate to methods of making a transistor. Each of the three
independent claims 25, 26 and 41 recite in the initial clause providing a volume of semi-
conductor material as well as other features. The next succeeding clauses of each
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007