Ex parte MAEGAWA - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-0725                                                          
          Application 08/304,906                                                      

                    1.  A thin film transistor, comprising:                           
                    an active layer including a channel region of a first             
          conductivity type, a source region of a second conductivity type            
          adjacent to one end of the channel region, an offset region of              
          the first conductivity type having one end connected to another             
          end of said channel region, and a drain region of the second                
          conductivity type connected to another end of the offset region;            
                    a first insulating film formed on a first surface of              
          said active layer;                                                          
                    a gate electrode formed at a position opposing to said            
          channel region with said first insulating film interposed; and              
                    a second insulating film formed at a position opposing            
          to said offset region with said first insulating film interposed,           
          including an ion implanted impurity for forming charges in an               
          amount sufficient to reduce the leakage current.                            
                                                                                     
                    The examiner’s answer cites admitted prior art and the            
          following reference:                                                        
          Woods                    4,007,294                Feb. 8, 1977              

                                       OPINION                                        
                    The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                
          unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Woods.                      
                    While the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of            
          obviousness as to claims 1 and 6, the examiner has not stated a             
          prima facie case as to claims 11, 17, 20, and 21 because there is           
          no treatment of the penultimate recitation of each of these                 
          claims.                                                                     


                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007