Appeal No. 95-4873
Application No. 08/174,723
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 7-14 over
2
the reference to Yang .
With respect to Fig. 1(a) of the reference, we agree
with appellant that there is no tunneling barrier in the area of
the drain of the reference which might be considered the second
tunneling barrier of the claims. This is because of the n+ Si
implant utilized to form the drain region, which region extends
down into the 200Å n+ GaAs quantum well. The Yang publication
discloses that the silicon implant is used to make shallow ohmic
contacts to define the drain region. The only reference to
tunneling is under the source terminal; tunneling is indicated by
the hollow arrow under the source terminal of Fig. 1(a).
However, irrespective of the above analysis of the
reference's disclosure, the first and second tunneling barriers of
the claims read on those portions of the two 30Å layers of the
double-barrier tunneling barrier under the source. The lower 30Å
2 It is not clear from appellant’s specification that the 100Å
layer of undoped GaAs located between the two 30Å layers of
undoped Al Ga As, which three layers form the undoped double-
0.4 0.6
barrier resonant tunneling barrier 5, is a quantum well. However,
we have concluded that this is the case from the construction of
independent claims 7 and 11, and the fact that dependent claims 8
an 12 indicate that the second quantum well, like the first, is
comprised of GaAs.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007