Appeal No. 2003-1195
Application No. 08/526,339
of doped polysilicon” and directs this argument to instant
claim 7, which has been amended from the claim appearing before
us in our earlier decision (brief, pages 7-8). This is a
plausible argument in view of our earlier affirmance based on
layer 44 in Spangler not being directly in contact with
dielectric layer 180 and our finding that the earlier claim did
not require such contact. Instant claim 7 does require such
contact with the substrate and the layer of doped polysilicon.
Yet, the examiner never adequately addresses this issue.
Moreover, while appellant makes a variety of arguments,
indicating various claimed features which are alleged to not be
taught or suggested by Spangler, as the primary reference, the
examiner never adequately addresses these arguments. For
example, appellant points to the claim 1 limitation of “a layer
of doped polysilicon on a surface of said substrate, said layer
of polysilicon having sections defining therein a polysilicon
source, a polysilicon gate, and a polysilicon drain” and argues
that in Figure 2 of Spangler, gates 86 and 88 are not in layer 44
and thus fail to teach these claimed features. Similarly,
appellant points out various other claimed limitations, at
pages 9-11 of the brief, and argues that the cited features are
not taught or suggested by the applied references.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007