Appeal No. 96-3997
Application No. 08/173,953
between the epitaxial layer and the
semiconductor substrate, the second impurity
region having a maximal impurity concentration ata
predetermined distance from the surface of the
epitaxial layer toward an inside of the epitaxial
layer and being higher in impurity
concentration than the first impurity region.
The Examiner, in making the obviousness rejection (Answer,
pages 4 and 7), seeks to modify the breakdown diode of Kokai
60-229376 by substituting the buried implanted subsurface
breakdown region taught in the breakdown diode of Kokai 56-
36171 (element 5, Figure 2) for the diffused breakdown region
5 in Kokai 60-229376.
In response, Appellants assert a lack of suggestion or
motivation in the references for combining or modifying
teachings to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
After careful review of the Kokai 60-239376 and Kokai 56-36171
references, we are in agreement with Appellants' stated
position in the Briefs. The mere fact that the prior art may
be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not
make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested
the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
Examiner's statement of the grounds of rejection at page 4 of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007