Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
and 24 in Jang “terminates” under the thinnest portion of the
BOX oxide extension along the entire left to right horizontally
extending p-n junction interface when viewed in cross section.
In our opinion, this is a reasonable interpretation of the layer
arrangement disclosed by Jang, an interpretation which Appellant
has not shown by evidence and/or argument to be in error.
With respect to the claimed features of etched formation of
the field oxide region, the particular field oxide reduced
thickness range, and the enhanced breakdown voltage function,
Appellant reiterates the arguments made previously with respect
to Nakano. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive for all
of the reasons discussed supra with regard to Nakano.
In view of the above discussion and analysis, it is our
opinion that the Jang reference discloses all of the limitations
of appealed representative claim 8. A disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007