Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
rejection at page 7 of the examiner’s answer. Appellant argues,
at pages 10 and 11 of the brief, against the second paragraph
rejection, however, the main argument seems to be that the
examiner should have entered the amendment after final rejection
which would have eliminated the rejections which the examiner has
maintained. We are constrained to consider the claims as they
appear in the record. The entry of the amendment after the final
rejection is strictly a petitionable matter and is not the before
us. Rather than affirming the examiner pro forma on this
rejection, we nevertheless, consider the merits of the rejection.
We agree with the examiner that indeed, claims 2 and 3 are
indefinite for the reasons set forth by the examiner at page 7 of
the answer. However, as to claim 2, line 34, we do not agree
with the examiner’s position that it is unclear what the word
line is being insulated from. Our reading of claim 2, lines 34
to 38 convinces us that the bit line is being insulated from the
word line by insulating layer 29 as shown in figure 5 of the
specification. As to the other specific points raised by the
examiner at page 7 of the answer, we are in agreement with the
examiner. For example, the word “coincident” (claim 2, line 4),
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007