Appeal No. 2001-0546
Application 07/842,722
This "concern" does not point to anything overlooked or
misapprehended in our decision. Nor is it apparent what action
appellants would have us take to modify our decision.
Appellants state (RR2): "It is a second concern that in the
35USC103 [sic] rejections, the record is not exactly clear what
is relied on as the suggestion or motivator for the combination."
This argument just vaguely raises the question of motivation
without pointing to any particular statement of motivation as
error and without pointing to any place where the decision fails
to state a motivation. The decision speaks for itself, including
the motivation for the obviousness rejections.
Appellants state (RR2):
It is a third concern that the amendment; concerning the
limitation "said gate insulator and said gate member
producing a work function in the mid range of said substrate
energy band gap range" which merely means that up to the
three elements of the structure, the substrate, the oxide
and the superconductor gate in each others presence will
result in a desired work function; is being viewed too
narrowly in the new ground of rejection. The variation in
ingredients, of any or all of the superconductor gate
member, of the Ruthenium oxide example oxide member, and of
the substrate member, can affect the entire gate and produce
the desired work function.
The limitation "said gate insulator and said gate member
producing a work function in the mid range of said substrate
energy band gap range" appears in claim 27. Claim 27 and its
dependent claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of written description of this limitation
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007