Appeal No. 2000-2060
Application 08/568,209
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs3 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner argues that Hess discloses all the elements
found in claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 and 22, except for “a multi-
functional layer having a first portion that functions as a
channel of the transistor” as recited in independent claim 1, “an
uninterrupted layer of conductive material inter-connected
between and forming at least a part of the transistor and the
3 Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 1, 1999, Paper
No. 18. In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 19,
mailed August 3, 1999, the Appellant filed a Reply Brief on
October 7, 1999, Paper No. 20. The Examiner mailed an office
communication on December 30, 1999, stating that the reply brief
has been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007