Appeal No. 95-0926
Application 08/026,222
semiconductor, is also not persuasive because while this appears
to be Kirchner's preferred embodiment in order to eliminate Fermi
level pinning, Kirchner clearly teaches, throughout the patent
specification, that there are times that one wishes to introduce
anionic species in a selective pattern, e.g., see column 5, lines
37-41 of Kirchner. Thus, Kirchner does not teach away from
appellants' claimed invention in this regard.
At page 14 of the brief, appellants argue that
[n]one of the figures show a gate metal
electrode in Schottky barrier contact
with the active layer.
This, too, is not persuasive of patentability because, while
Kirchner may not show such a gate metal electrode, the examiner
relied on Liles for such a teaching and appellants have failed to
address the combination of references as applied by the examiner.
In fact, appellants have not addressed Liles at all in their
brief.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 9, 10 and 12 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because
neither of the references or a combination of them discloses a
surface layer portion of the active layer having anions to
provide a negatively charged surface potential that is disposed
between the drain (and source, as per claim 15) and gate
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007