Appeal No. 1999-1637
Application 08/417,537
Claims 18, 19, 30, 31, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Wong. The examiner sites Figures 9 and 10 of this reference.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 18, 19, 30 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Ono in view of Sugaya.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we sustain the
rejection of claims 18, 30, 31, 34 and 35 as being anticipated by Wong, but reverse the
rejection of claim 19. Wong appears to correspond to appellants’ admitted prior art
trench-based split gate devices as discussed at specificatioin page 2.
As to independent claims 18 and 30 rejected over Wong, appellants’ common
argument at pages 36, 37, 40 and 41 of the principal brief on appeal alleges that there is
no select gate in Wong to meet the feature recited in these independent claims on appeal.
The examiner addresses this argument at the bottom of page 4 of the answer by making
reference to Figure 9 and observing that the select transistor 922 in Figure 9 has its own
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007