Appeal No. 1997-3967
Application No. 08/482,058
evidence or arguments by appellants, we will sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Denda.
We reach a different result with regard to the rejection
of claims 20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Denda in view
of Schaber.
The claims here call for the emitter electrode making
contact to said emitter region at a location between the inner
sidewall dielectric filaments “in said contact hole.” The
examiner relies on elements 10 in Schaber to provide such a
teaching and purports to combine this with Denda since both
references teach a bipolar transistor and concludes that it
would have been obvious to have the sidewall dielectric
filaments of Schaber in Denda “because they reduce the size of
the contact hole of the emitter.” We agree with appellants.
Merely because the base electrode of Schaber “can” be used in
the device of Denda [answer, bottom of page 6] does not lead
to the conclusion that it would have been obvious to do so,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In our view,
appellants are correct in contending that while in Schaber the
insulator elements 10 are used to avoid a p-n junction, there
would have been no reason to use such an insulator in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007