Appeal No. 2000-1402
Application No. 08/755,052
film 64.
We agree with the examiner that the claim does not require
the contact layer to be formed “directly on” the substrate. The
fact that there are intervening layers 62 and 64 between the
substrate and the gate strip 46 does not negate the broad, yet
reasonable, interpretation of gate strip 46 being “on a surface
of a substrate,” as claimed.
Since appellants offer no other arguments against the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) over Pritchard, we will sustain this rejection.
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12, the examiner
points to Figure 3 of Stolmeijer as disclosing each and every
claimed limitation.
While appellants’ argument is not entirely clear, they
appear to be arguing that Stolmeijer does not disclose the
claimed first and second legs of a first planar wire because the
component of the reference relied on by the examiner for
disclosing the “second leg” is “merely a metal plug...for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007