Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
10. We find that Chatterjee teaches an SCR made using SOI
technology. The SCR makes use of either MOSFET or
bipolar transistors. (See title, Abstract).
ANALYSIS RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 14, 17, 18,
AND 31 THROUGH 36.
First Issue:
Appellant’s arguments have not convinced us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Au can implement in SOI technology. Initially we note that
the Appellant’s arguments do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Au
teaches the claimed circuit elements arranged as claimed (fact 3), rather
Appellant’s arguments dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that a skilled
artisan could implement Au’s circuit using SOI technology. Appellant has
reasoned that the differences between SOI technology and regular silicon
technology would prevent the Au’s circuit from being implemented in SOI,
but Appellant has not provided any evidence to support the reasoning. In
rebuttal to the Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has provided evidence
(the Chen and Chatterjee references) which shows that, at the time of the
Appellant’s filing of the instant application, it was known in the art that
SCRs could be made using SOI technology. (Facts 8 through 10.) Thus, we
find that the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
fabricating Au’s circuit using SOI was within the skill of the art of the time
of the invention. Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the circuit of Au could be implemented using
SOI technology.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013