Appeal No. 2003-2176
Application No. 09/778,460
2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free to select a
single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection
based solely on the selected representative claim.”).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
Examiner’s rejections are well founded. Our reasons for this determination follow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer and
the Briefs.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 4 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Erdeljac and Inaba; and claims 2, 3, 7
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Erdeljac, Inaba and Kim. We select claims 4 and 7 as representative of the
rejected subject matter.
The subject matter of claim 4 is directed to a method of manufacturing a
semiconductor device, comprising the combining together of an N-type thin film
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007