Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
With respect to claims 3 and 5, the obviousness rejection
over Mori explained at page 6 of the examiner’s answer is also
not sustainable because of the same deficiency. Claim 3 has
already been discussed. In addition, we point out that claim 3
also recites a spacer layer (lines 22 to 23) and the examiner has
not provided a reason why it would have been obvious to provide
the spacer layer other than the bare statement that “otherwise
the bitlines and wordlines would be shorted out”(answer at
page 6). Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 3 and 5 over Mori.
In conclusion, we have sustained the rejection of claims 2
to 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but have not
sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claim 2, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 of claims 1 and 3 to 4, or
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3 and 5.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
to 5 is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007