Appeal No. 95-4159
Application 08/151,055
While we do not disagree with the examiner that the P-
type collector region of Fay can be achieved by a diffusion
process, we agree with appellant that the dimensions of the
Fay PT IGBT device cannot simply be interchanged with the
Laska NPT IGBT device. The examiner cannot simply combine
selected teachings from disparate devices to support the
position that the combined teachings would have been obvious
to the artisan.
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
With respect to independent claim 3, it is
significantly broader than independent claim 1. Nevertheless,
claim 3 recites the same substrate limitations that we
considered in claim 1 as well as a diffused region in the
substrate having a depth of at least 2 microns. Since we find
the same deficiencies in combining the teachings of Fay with
Laska that we discussed above, we again fail to see how the
invention as recited in claim 3 is suggested by the applied
prior art. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 3.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007