Appeal No. 1999-1631
Application 08/733,586
extends in the long dimension of Figure 4, we are also
affirming the rejection of this claim.
Appellant's only argument with respect to independent
claim 5 is that it is distinguishable from Harari for the
reasons given with respect to claim 1 (Reply Brief at 3). In
view of our determination that those reasons are unpersuasive
as to claim 1, we are also affirming the rejection of claim 5.
Dependent claim 8, which specifies that "the gates of
said p-channel pull-up transistors are laterally aligned," is
not addressed in the Reply Brief, and the only argument made
in the Brief, which is that Harari fails to disclose this
feature (Brief at 6), is not based on an explanation of the
meaning of the term "laterally aligned." Accordingly, the
rejection of this claim is affirmed.
For lack of an argument by appellant, we are also
affirming the rejection of dependent claim 9, which specifies
that the distances of the two offsets are the same.
Independent claim 10 differs from claims 1 and 5 by
specifying that the first and second n-channel transistors are
"horizontally aligned." In order to satisfy this limitation,
the examiner argues that for purposes of this claim the
- 17 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007