Appeal No. 2005-0520
Application 09/768,271
It is appellant’s “wish to group all of claims 6-9 and 11-19
together.” Accordingly, all of the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 6.
We have throughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments for
patentability, including the prior art evidence relied upon in
support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that Yoo describes the claimed subject matter on appeal
within the meaning of § 102. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not dispute that the figures illustrated in
the Yoo patent depict all of the features of the claimed semi-
conductor device. It is appellant’s contention that protective
polysilicon floating gate 21 of Yoo, although shown in the
reference drawings as on the field oxide, cannot, in fact, be
formed on field oxide layer 12 and still function as a working
floating gate. According to appellant, “a floating gate
typically must be formed on a relatively thin insulating layer,
such as a tunnel oxide layer, so that exchange of charges between
the diffusion layer and the floating gate may occur” (page 6 of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007