Appeal No. 2000-1389
Application No. 08/949,826
provide support for forming the second doped region with a doping
concentration higher than the first doping concentration of the
tank. However, as explained supra, the method disclosed in the
specification as originally filed forms the second doped region
with a higher concentration than the first doped region, and any
disclosure to the contrary is clearly in error. Consequently, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 8 through 13 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Regarding the anticipation rejection, independent claim 19
recites, in pertinent part, "forming a tunnel region in said tank
region of the same conductivity type as said tank region." In
Santin, the examiner (Answer, page 4) points to elements 32 and
13 as the tank and tunnel regions, respectively. Elements 32 and
13 are both disclosed as being of an n-conductivity type, thereby
satisfying the limitation that they are of the same conductivity
type. However, element 13 is a column line buried in P-tank 11,
not a tunnel region formed in tank region 32 as recited in the
claims. Therefore, Santin fails to meet each and every element
of claim 19 and the claims dependent therefrom and, consequently,
cannot anticipate the claims. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 19 and 21 through 23.
The examiner's rejection of claim 20 relies on the same
interpretation of Santin that we found above to be deficient.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007