Appeal No. 2000-0769
Application 08/997,326
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 17) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 19) for a statement of the Examiner's rejection, and to
the brief (Paper No. 16) (pages referred to as "Br__"), the
supplemental brief (Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as3
"SBr__"), and the reply brief (Paper No. 20) (pages referred
to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims stand or fall together as a group (Br4) and,
thus, stand or fall together with independent claim 8.
It is noted that although claim 8 is directed a method of
fabrication, the steps of fabrication are not listed in order.
The step of "depositing a gate" is listed first, but it is
later recited that "said depositing a gate occurs subsequent
to said depositing an active region and said treating the
composite." The limitation of "depositing an active region
comprising a poly-Si Ge alloy material and a channel layer of
1-x x
The Examiner reopened prosecution in response to the3
appeal brief to reformulate the rejection and made the action
final (Paper No. 17). Appellants exercised their option under
37 CFR § 1.193(b)(2)(ii) (1999) to reinstate the appeal.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007