Appeal No. 96-0341
Application 08/005,760
In view of the foregoing, it is evident from the disclosure
of Naito that the forward current flowing through the second
diode is greater than the forward current flowing through the
first diode because the first portion [zone] 31 is thinner than
portion [zone] 32, and because the diffusion potential of portion
[zone] 31 is lower than the diffusion potential of portion [zone]
32. To be more exact, Naito has more forward current flowing
through the thicker base region (i.e., the region under
portion/zone 31) in the second diode than through the thinner
base region (i.e., the region under portion/zone 32) in the first
diode. Such a forward current flow in Naito is opposite to the
claimed greater forward current flow through the thinner base
region in the first diode.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner has mistakenly
concluded that the areas of the Naito diode device are inherently
dimensioned such that "a forward current flowing through said
first diode is greater than a forward current flowing through
said second diode by at least a factor of 2" (claim 1). The
claimed forward current flows can never occur in Naito. It is
for this reason that we are reversing the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 12, and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 13 and 14.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007