Appeal No. 95-4159
Application 08/151,055
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
We consider first the rejection as it applies to
independent claim 1 and claims 2, 6 and 7 which depend
therefrom. These claims stand or fall together [brief, page
5]. The examiner has read claim 1 on Fay, and concludes that
Fay only lacks the teaching of the third diffused region on
the backside of the substrate [final rejection, pages 2-3].
The examiner cites Laska as a teaching that it was
conventional to form a third region of an IGBT by doping the
backside of a silicon substrate to form the emitter of the
device [Id., page 3]. The examiner concludes that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007