Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
requires additional material to convey a definite meaning
to the claimed limitation; “surface” (claim 2, line 4 and claim
3, line 5) should be a part of a solid material which forms the
claimed drain; and the “word line contact” and the “bit-line
contact” are undefined because the two lines make contact with
many surfaces and it is unclear which contacts are being recited.
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2
to 5 under this ground of rejection.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or §§ 102/103 or § 103.
We noted above that claims 2 to 5 are indefinite, however,
with the help of the figures and the text in the specification,
we have an understanding of the meanings of the various terms in
the claims. Therefore, we shall consider the merits of the
claims. All of the rejections on the merits are based on a
single reference, namely Mori.
On pages 3 to 5 of the examiner’s answer, the examiner
asserts that claim 2 is anticipated by Mori. The examiner
rejects claims 1 and 3 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 over Mori
at pages 5 and 6 of the examiner’s answer. Further, the examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007