Appeal 2007-1552
Application 09/852,123
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Avery.1
2. Claims 2-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Avery and Smith.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Avery, Smith, and Li.
4. Claims 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Avery, Smith, Li, and Wong.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that Avery fails to anticipate claim 1 because Avery fails
to disclose “a single track resistor (RB) co-integrated into a semiconductor body,
wherein said single track resistor precedes every control connection (B) of said
laterally bipolar transistors (T1-T3)” (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner found that the
p-doped substrate of Avery constituted “a resistor (RS) co-integrated into a
semiconductor body preceding the control connection for all of the aforementioned
laterally designed bipolar transistors QL and QS” (Answer 3).
The issues before us are:
1) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Avery.
1 The Answer introduces this rejection as a new ground of rejection (Answer
12-13) and fails to reiterate the previous rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Avery in view of Wada or Ravanelli (Final Office Action 2). Accordingly, we
deem the Examiner to have withdrawn the previous rejection of claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013