Appeal 2007-1360
Application 10/605,699
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent
claims 1 and 22 based on the teachings of Kim, the Examiner indicates
(Answer 3) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of Kim. In
particular, the Examiner directs attention to the illustrations in Figures 3 and
4 of Kim, as well as the disclosure at column 3, lines 8-16 of Kim.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Kim
so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants’ arguments
(Br. 7-8) focus on the contention that, in contrast to the requirements of
independent claims 1 and 22, Kim does not disclose an injection site
associated with a CMOS semiconductor structure.
As pointed out by the Examiner, however, Kim discloses (col. 2, ll.
34-42) the structural interconnection of the injection site (data I/O pad) and
the PMOS and NMOS transistors which make up the CMOS semiconductor
structure. With this explicit disclosure of Kim in mind, we fail to see how
Kim’s data I/O pad injection site could be considered to be anything other
than “associated” with the CMOS semiconductor structure as claimed.
Appellants have further expanded (Reply Br. 2-4) upon this argument
by attempting to draw a distinction between Kim’s injector site which,
according to Appellants, is located on the surface of the semiconductor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013