Appeal No. 1998-2044
Application No. 08/719,773
as teaching a shortened surface channel and a buried layer for
carrier confinement. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to combine the teachings of Kagami
and Yazawa [answer, page 4].
Appellants make the following arguments: 1) appellants
argue that Yazawa does not disclose a surface channel region
as asserted by the examiner, but only a buried channel region;
2) appellants argue that Kagami teaches only a surface channel
region with no buried channel region; 3) appellants argue that
there would be no basis for combining Kamagi’s surface channel
features with Yazawa because Yazawa seeks to avoid any surface
current; and 4) appellants argue that Yazawa teaches away from
the alignment recited in claims 17-23 [brief, pages 7-11].
The examiner responds that the area under n+ region 27 in
Kagami is a buried channel within appellants’ definition of
the term [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellants respond that there
is no buried channel in the Kagami device [reply brief].
We basically agree with each of appellants’ arguments set
forth above. We do not accept the examiner’s position that
the impurity region 27 of Kagami creates a buried channel
region within appellants’ own definition. Appellants have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007