Appeal No. 95-1555
Application 07/871,530
The Examiner also has rejected claims 16 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya and Kumagai. On
page 11 of the brief, Appellants argue that neither Tsuchiya or
Kumagai teaches or suggests “a buried semiconductor layer of the
first conductivity type disposed on said semiconductor substrate
of the second conductivity type” as recited in claim 16. The
Examiner argues in the final action that the lower portion of the
layer 3 of Kumagai meets this limitation because it is a diffuse
region.
After a careful review of Kumagai, we fail to find that the
lower portion of the Kumagai layer 3 meets a buried semiconductor
layer as recited in Appellants’ claim 16. Appellants argue on
page 12 of the brief that claim 16 is directed to the embodiment
shown in Figure 18 of the Appellants’ drawing which shows a
distinct layer 100. We fail to find that Kumagai teaches a
buried layer as recited in Appellants’ claim 16 and thereby we
will not sustain the Examiner rejection of claim 16 as well as
claims 17 through 21 that depend from claim 16.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed; however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
12, 13 and 16 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007