Appeal No. 2003-1195
Application No. 08/526,339
drain sections defined within the layer, a layer of oxide
material adjacent the polysilicon, with holes therein containing
polysilicon, and a layer of n-type silicon having doped
source/drain regions contacting the doped polysilicon. The
examiner cites Inoue as teaching, on the cover figure, a pair of
bridge regions 12/12' in contact with source/drain regions 4/5
and concludes therefrom that it would have been obvious “to
provide bridge regions as taught by Inoue . . . in the device of
Spangler . . . in order to limit the electric field within the
channel region as desired by Inoue . . .” (answer, page 4).
For his part, in discussing the combination of Spangler and
Inoue, at pages 7-8 of the brief, appellant does not argue that
there is any fault with the examiner’s interpretation of the
references or with the combination of references. Instead,
appellant merely relies on our earlier decision of July 31, 2000
(Paper No. 15), arguing that the examiner’s rejection is “in
conflict with points set forth” in that decision (brief, page 7).
Appellant states that since that decision was based on a broad
interpretation of the term “section” and that term no longer
appears in the claims, the rejection is improper. While such an
argument would be valid if the examiner was basing the rejection
on the term “section,” this does not appear to be the basis for
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007