Appeal No. 2005-2695
Application No. 10/280,926
substantive arguments in the reply brief even though the statement of the rejection has
not changed. Here, we find the arguments in the reply brief to be untimely, but for
completeness, we will address them.
The examiner maintains that it is unclear how a lateral diode is “formed” since a
P+ and a N+ layer of diode 106 which are not in direct contact with each other and how
a lateral diode (a PN junction) can “include” an electrode as recited in claim 7 and how
an electrode can “define” a lateral diode as recited in claims 8 and 21. (Answer at
pages 4-5.) Appellants argue in the reply brief at page 2 that “the electrode may be
defined as part of the diode to make it clear how the opposed regions of the opposite
conductivity type are situated relative to that electrode.” We find no discussion in the
language of independent claim 7 of the relative positioning of the regions. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive since it is not commensurate in scope with the recited
(or disclosed) claim limitations. We agree with the examiner that the step of forming a
lateral diode including the electrode does not distinctly claim the invention. Therefore,
we will sustain the examiner rejection of independent claim 7 and its dependent claims.
With respect to the examiner rejection of claims 8 and 21, appellants have not
addressed the argument as to how the second lateral diode is “defined” and how a
second transistor is defined using a second electrode. (Answer at page 5.) We agree
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007