Appeal No. 2005-0864 Page 3
Application No. 09/859,0864
In rebuttal, appellant relies on the following reference of
record:
Plummer et al., Silicon VLSI Technology, Fundamentals, Practice
and Modeling, Chapter 8, pp. 451-454 (publication date - not of
record).
Claims 1-7, 10, 17, 19, 21-25 and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Murakami.
Claims 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murakami in
view of Chu.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon review of the entire record including the respective
positions advanced by appellant and the examiner with respect to
the rejections that remains before us, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellant that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007