Appeal No. 2003-1195
Application No. 08/526,339
Claims 1-10 and 25-35 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Spangler
and Inoue with regard to claims 1-4, 6-10, 25-27 and 29-35,
adding Zavracky with regard to claims 5 and 28.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, the examiner states that the claimed
source and drain are “incorrectly identified” because claims 1,
25 and 35 state that “the polysilicon layer defines a source, a
drain and a gate but those portions of the polysilicon which are
identified as the source and the drain are only the connections
to those features and are not those features themselves” because
the source and drain are identified in the figures as 34 and 35,
respectively (answer, page 3). Moreover, the examiner questions
whether there are two sources and two drains because the layer of
silicon “is claimed as having a diffused source and drain which
seems to be a second set” (answer, page 3).
The inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007