Appeal No. 96-3105
Application 08/135,003
OPINION
The claims are argued to stand or fall together (Br6).
The claims will stand or fall together with claim 1, the sole
independent claim.
Appellants argue that the examiner errs in finding no
structural difference between grading a source region and
grading a first portion of a channel region (Br6-7, argument
i). The examiner states that he "sees no structural
difference between 'grading in the channel near the source'
vs. 'grading in the source near the channel'; the result is
the same" (EA5). Although there is a structural difference
between a channel and a source in terms of doping, we are
reluctant to find that the examiner erred in his general
statement because where the source ends and the channel begins
when grading is present between the source and the channel may
not be clear depending upon the circumstances. However, as
discussed, infra, we are not persuaded that Wieder discloses
grading as claimed.
Appellants argue (Br7): "By merely teaching grading of
the source, Wieder does not teach a structure which could be
used to improve charge carrier flow between the source and
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007