Appeal No. 2006-1350
Application No. 10/074,732
examiner’s apparent change in position because appellants had the right to file a reply
brief in response to the Answer, which they chose not to do.3
We are, further, not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 17 and 15. With
respect to dependent claim 15, subject to a separate rejection under § 103, appellants
seem to submit that patentability can reside on the order of process steps, as
demonstrated by the examiner’s withdrawal from consideration of claims deemed to be
patentably distinct from the claims before us on appeal. (Brief at 13.) However, the
process steps of the claims withdrawn from consideration are different from those of
instant claim 15. Moreover, appellants’ remarks allege patentability based on annealing
the first gate region and the second gate region before forming the metal layer; i.e., the
timing of an anneal prior to depositing metal. Yet, appellants acknowledge (Brief at 12)
but do not show error in the examiner’s finding that Forbes teaches annealing a first
gate region and a second electrode region prior to forming a metal. Nor do appellants
demonstrate error in the application of Forbes’ teachings to the double gate structure
taught by Adkisson in view of the further teachings of Fried, as expressed in the
rejection of base claim 1.
3 Moreover, appellants’ arguments at page 8 of the Brief as to why the device of Fried cannot be
considered to have a double gate structure appears to be inconsistent with appellants’ specification at
page 2, lines 11 and 12, which indicates the gate material of a two-gate transistor may be of the same
material type and in continuous contact.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007