Appeal No. 96-0341 Application 08/005,760 In view of the foregoing, it is evident from the disclosure of Naito that the forward current flowing through the second diode is greater than the forward current flowing through the first diode because the first portion [zone] 31 is thinner than portion [zone] 32, and because the diffusion potential of portion [zone] 31 is lower than the diffusion potential of portion [zone] 32. To be more exact, Naito has more forward current flowing through the thicker base region (i.e., the region under portion/zone 31) in the second diode than through the thinner base region (i.e., the region under portion/zone 32) in the first diode. Such a forward current flow in Naito is opposite to the claimed greater forward current flow through the thinner base region in the first diode. In view of the foregoing, the examiner has mistakenly concluded that the areas of the Naito diode device are inherently dimensioned such that "a forward current flowing through said first diode is greater than a forward current flowing through said second diode by at least a factor of 2" (claim 1). The claimed forward current flows can never occur in Naito. It is for this reason that we are reversing the 35 U.S.C. � 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 12, and the 35 U.S.C. � 103 rejection of claims 1, 13 and 14. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007