Appeal No. 2004-0657
Application No. 09/845,604
steps and features required by the appealed claim 1 method “read
on” the previously discussed steps and features of Muller.
In light of the foregoing, we share the Examiner’s finding
that appealed claim 1 is anticipated by the Muller patent.
Regarding the § 102 rejection of claim 2, the Appellant (at
least implicitly) concedes that the Muller device “is often called
‘double gated’” but argues that patentee’s double gated device “is
distinctly different from Applicant’s electrically isolated dual
gates” as defined by appealed claim 2 (reply brief, page 5, first
full paragraph). According to the Appellant, the basis for this
alleged distinction is that “[t]he polysilicon layer 21 [of Muller]
clearly extends over the silicon fin 4, creating a semiconductor
device with only one electrically isolated source and drain!”
(id.). However, the Appellant’s device is correspondingly
disclosed in the subject specification and drawing (e.g., see
Figure 6).
It follows that the method and features defined by appealed
claim 2 also “read on” the method and features of Muller.
We reach this same finding with respect to appealed claims 3
and 5. The Appellant’s opposing arguments regarding the features
recited in these clams are contrary to the explicit disclosure of
the Muller patent and thus are unpersuasive.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007