Appeal No. 2000-1389
Application No. 08/949,826
is support in the original disclosure for making element 46 "n+",
and the portions of the specification and drawings that have
something other than n+ for element 46 should be changed as
amended to be consistent with the rest of the disclosure.
Therefore, we find that no new matter has been added by the
amendment.
We further disagree with the examiner's assertion that tank
and moat regions mean the same thing in the specification.
Appellants do differentiate between the two elements on page 14
of the original disclosure. Specifically, line 5 reads "tank
region 13," whereas line 18 reads "active moat region 40."
Although other portions of the original disclosure recited "tank
or moat region 13," appellants amended many of them to
differentiate between the two terms without objection from the
examiner. Accordingly, as the specification differentiates
between "moat" and "tank," Figure 1 should also be amended to
differentiate between the two terms. Thus, we find that the
amendment to Figure 1 does not introduce new matter.
Turning now to the rejection of the claims as including new
matter, we find that the original specification supports the
present claims. In particular, the examiner rejects claims 8
through 13 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
asserting that the specification as originally filed fails to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007