Appeal No. 1996-4082
Application 08/179,238
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 6 to 8) that neither Lunardi nor Adlerstein teaches or suggests a
collector region being under an etch stop layer, that the combination of Lunardi and Adlerstein also fails
to teach or suggest such a feature, that there is no motivation to combine these references, and that to
combine these two references in order to achieve appellant’s claimed invention would require the use of
hindsight. We agree.
We find that neither Lunardi nor Adlerstein, taken singly or in any combination thereof, taught
or would have suggested the recited heterojunction bipolar transistor having "a collector region under
said etch stop layer" (independent claims 1 and 7 on appeal) or having "a collector region abutting said
base region, said collector not abutting said emitter region and under said etch stop layer" (independent
claims 19, 21, 23, and 28 on appeal).
Lunardi shows (Figure 1) a collector region (13) as being above an etch stop layer (20). See
column 1, lines 29 to 46 (discussing Figure 1). Adlerstein also shows (Figure 5) a collector region
(20a-g) as being above an etch stop layer (18a). Indeed, we note that the examiner admits that "the
Adlerstein reference fails because Adlerstein’s collector (20) is over the underlying composite base
(18)" (Answer, page 6). Thus, we agree with appellant, and find that neither applied reference teaches
the salient feature recited in all of the independent claims on appeal of a collector region being under an
etch stop layer. For at least this reason, we cannot sustain the examiner’s decision to reject the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lunardi and Adlerstein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007