Ex Parte MAKI - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2001-1523                                                         
          Application No. 08/731,236                                                   

                    forming bipolar transistors at the locations of                    
               said openings in said bipolar transistor forming                        
               regions by implanting impurities through at least one                   
               of said plurality of openings.                                          
               The examiner relies on the following references:                        
          Komatsu                             4,589,936      May  20, 1986             
          Christenson                         4,882,294      Nov. 21, 1989             
          Shiomi et al. (Shiomi)              5,095,355      Mar. 10, 1992             
               Claims 1 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Shiomi.  Claims 1 and 12 also stand rejected               
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christenson2.               
               Claims 1 through 16, and 18 through 24 stand rejected under             
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christenson in view of            
          Komatsu.                                                                     
               Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the                  
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs3 and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                  



               2 The examiner has not reproduced this rejection in the examiner’s      
          answer, however, the examiner responds to the arguments by appellant regarding
          this rejection at pages 7 and 8 of the examiner’s answer.  Therefore, we     
          assume that the examiner is still maintaining this rejection as presented in 
          the final rejection and as responded to by appellant.                        
                                                                                      
               3 A reply brief was filed as paper no. 32 on May 25, 2001.  The examiner
          noted the entry of the reply brief, see paper no. 33.                        
                                           3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007