Appeal No. 2005-0328
Application No. 09/723,655
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 through 14,
21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the brief:
Davies does not teach using the oxide and polysilicon stripes in
forming the second base diffusions. Indeed, Davies teaches the opposite.
Davies teaches forming sidewall spacers 18 before forming low
resistivity regions 17. That is, sidewall spacers 18 are used for positioning
low resistivity regions. Col. 4, lines 12-14. As a result, contrary to the
results achieved by the present invention, the low resistively regions 17 do
not extend laterally as far as possible.
Further, on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, appellant argues, citing Davies column 4,
lines 25-43, that the sidewall spacers are critical to Davies device and as such
Davis teaches away from the claimed feature of using the oxide and polysilicon
stripes which do not have sidewall spacers as a mask for forming the second
base diffusions.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007