Ex parte SHANFIELD et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 95-0926                                                          
          Application 08/026,222                                                      

          electrodes, as claimed.  Liles is not directed to an active layer           
          having anions at all.  Kirchner does show, in Figure 9, an oxide            
          with anions for local pinning located underneath gate 16 but this           
          is not a layer situated between the drain (or source) and the               
          gate electrodes, as claimed.  Further, while Kirchner discloses             
          that anionic species may be introduced in selective patterns, we            
          find nothing in the reference which would have suggested the                
          placement of such anions in a surface portion of the active layer           
          in the specific locations claimed.  Moreover, the surface layer             
          portion of the active layer having anions to provide a negatively           
          charged surface potential disposed between the drain and gate               
          electrodes is not an immaterial limitation as it is this                    
          limitation that is disclosed as providing the maintenance of the            
          reverse breakdown voltage which would normally be reduced during            
          the deposition of the passivation layer.  Yet, the examiner never           
          comes to grips with this specific claim limitation.                         
                    Accordingly, because the examiner has failed to                   
          establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the              
          claimed subject matter, the examiner's decision rejecting claims            
          9, 10 and 12 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007