Appeal 2007-1360
Application 10/605,699
arguments to be equally unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Answer 5-6) that Magee discloses a latch-up susceptible CMOS
semiconductor structure (col. 1, l. 62 through col. 3, l. 53) associated with an
I/O injector site and having plural contact regions 32-36 which are spaced a
varying distance between the circuit structures. As such, it is apparent to us
that Magee discloses all that is claimed in appealed claims 1, 7, and 11-14.
We would also point out that Appellants’ argument (Br. 10) that Magee
“teaches away” from the claimed invention is not appropriate or persuasive
in a rejection based on anticipation.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of all the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1-31 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
KIS
CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ, L.L.P.
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013