Ex parte MINATO - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-1757                                                        
          Application No. 08/450,145                                                  

               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 5, 7 and 8.  Claims 1 through 4 and 6 have been                      
          withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention.                      
               The invention is directed to a method of controlling a                 
          carrier lifetime in a semiconductor switching device.                       
          Representative independent claim 5 is reproduced as follows:                
               5. A transistor having a semiconductor layer with a                    
          current path portion extending substantially from a first                   
          electrode to a second electrode of said transistor through                  
          which a main current flows such that said semiconductor layer               
          is structured so that the carrier lifetime in said                          
          semiconductor layer is different between substantially all of               
          said current path portion of said semiconductor layer serving               
          as a path for most of said main current and a remaining                     
          portion of said semiconductor layer.                                        
               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Baliga et al.            4,620,211                Oct. 28, 1986             
               Claims 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                
          first and second paragraphs, as being based on an inadequate                
          written description and being indefinite, respectively.                     
          Further, claims 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                 
          103 as unpatentable over Baliga.                                            
               Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the                     
          respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                         
                                       OPINION                                        

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007