Ex parte IWAMURO - Page 9

          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.                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007