Appeal 2007-0377
Application 10/151,897
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the briefs and the
answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the briefs
have not been considered (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Regarding the rejection of claims 78-80 and 82, Appellants assert that tunnel
oxide 20 of Hsue does not control any tunneling current and even if tunneling takes
place, it would be between LDD region 18 and floating gate 28, and not between a
monocrystalline and a polycrystalline region (Br. 10). The Examiner responds that
controlling electron tunneling is the basic function of the tunnel oxide in the
EEPROM of Hsue (Answer 10). The Examiner further argues that the tunneling is
between the polycrystalline layer 28 and the monocrystalline substrate since LDD
region 18 is a part of substrate 10 and is indeed a monocrystalline region (Id.).
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013