Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
that Marty teaches an n-type dopant region having a vertical
width (W) that is sufficiently narrow to avoid lowering the
collector base breakdown voltage and a dopant concentration
sufficiently high to restrict base widening when the base
junction is forward biased.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 34-36,
39-41, 43 and 45 under 35 USC 102(e).
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 2, 3,
14, 22, 26, 27 and 33 as Being Unpatentable over Marty Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007