Appeal No. 2005-0327
Application No. 09/389,826
In asserting at the bottom of page 3 that all claims 1-9
fall together, we observe that the single page of arguments at
page 4 of the brief only appears to address the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal and no other claim is argued.
Pages 3 and 4 of the answer set forth a slightly more
detailed correlation of the recited features of independent claim
1 on appeal to the Figure 9 and 11 showings in Ker. The examiner
has therefore established corresponding teachings of the claimed
first zone, second zone and the respective SCR gated diode as
recited in claim 1 on appeal. Each and every feature argued at
page 4 of the brief has been addressed by the examiner in the
statement of the rejection as well as the responsive arguments
portion of it beginning at page 6.
Appellants are misplaced at page 4 of the brief in arguing
“FIGS. 4-6 of the claimed invention.” It appears that appellants
are inviting us to read into the broad subject matter of claim 1
the subject matter disclosed in Figures 4-6, which we will
clearly not do.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007