Appeal No. 1999-2006
Application No. 08/561,960
ascertaining the requisite degree of 'substantially constant
distance." The Examiner further contends, id. at page 8, that
"Matsushita clearly discloses in both Figures 19 and 20, an end
corner to floating gate (7) which is adjacent an end of the
drain region (10, 12) alongside the channel and thus meets and
anticipates presently pending claim 1." Appellant replies,
reply brief at page 2, that "claim 1 recites 'and said floating
gate and said major surface each having corners adjacent ends of
said source and drain regions alongside said channel region'".
We agree with Appellant. By looking at the figures of the
disclosure, the term "substantially" clearly means that the
floating gate is lined over the entire region of the channel and
the corners adjacent the source and the drain regions. Also, we
agree with Appellant that Figures 19 and 20 of Matsushita do not
show a floating gate having corners adjacent ends of said source
and drain regions alongside said channel region. Therefore,
Matsushita does not anticipate claim 1.
In passing, we note that, even though the Examiner did not
use Paterson to anticipate claim 1, Paterson, in Figure 3, does
show all the claimed elements of claim 1 except that it also
does not show the claimed substantially constant separation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007