Appeal 2007-1360
Application 10/605,699
dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, and 31 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, based on
Kim, of dependent claims 19 and 29 which set forth the use of the claimed
latch-up prevention CMOS semiconductor structure to prevent latch-up from
a cable discharge. We find no error in the Examiner’s position (Answer 5,
8) that such claim language is a mere recitation of intended use and does not
serve to distinguish over the CMOS semiconductor structure disclosed by
Kim. Further, the record before us is totally devoid of any evidence to
support Appellants’ contention (Br. 8) that Kim’s disclosed structure would
not be applicable to what Appellants have termed “non-standard” latch-up
tests “arising from a cable discharge event” due to Kim’s requirement for a
large N-well guard ring for latch-up prevention.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 26, and 27, based on Kim, we sustain this
rejection as well. Appellants argue (Reply Br. 5) that Kim does not disclose
the spacing of contact regions 22, 23, and 41 which “varies with the
proximity” of the contact regions to the injection site. We do not find this
persuasive since the language quoted by Appellants appears only in
dependent claims 2 and 23. On the other hand, dependent claims 5, 6 and
26, 27 are ultimately dependent, respectively, on claims 4 and 25, which
depend, respectively, from independent claims 1 and 22 and do not include
claims 2 and 23 in their dependency chain.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1, 7, and 11-14 based on Magee. Appellants’ arguments in response (Br. 9-
10; Reply Br. 5-7) mirror those made with respect to Kim, and we find such
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013