Appeal No. 95-1555
Application 07/871,530
recited in Appellants’ claim 10. On pages 6 and 7 of the brief,
Appellants only argue that Tsuchiya fails to teach this
limitation. Since this limitation is the only limitation argued
that distinguishes Tsuchiya, we find that Tsuchiya teaches all
the other limitations of claim 10.
The Examiner notes on page 2 of the final action that
Tsuchiya teaches all of the claimed limitations in Figure 12
except Tsuchiya does not show “a layer of semiconductor material
of said first conductivity type but of increased dopant
concentration in relation to said substrate overlying said
substrate of said first conductivity type” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 10. However, the Examiner argues that Anderson
teaches in Figure 2, item 40, this limitation. The Examiner
argues that it would have been obvious to modify the Tsuchiya
semiconductor integrated circuit device to include the Anderson’s
layer of semiconductor material of said first conductivity type
(item 40 shown in Figure 2) but of increased dopant concentration
in relation to said substrate overlying said substrate of said
first conductivity type.
We note that Appellants do not argue that Anderson does not
teach “a layer of semiconductor material of said first
conductivity type but of increased dopant concentration in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007