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.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007