Ex parte BEASOM - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-1584                                                          
          Application 08/066,697                                                      


          voltage, said PN junction has a breakdown voltage which is                  
          greater than the breakdown voltage of said PN junction when said            
          material capable of distributing a voltage applied thereto is               
          biased at the same bias voltage applied to said second                      
          semiconductor region.                                                       
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          anticipation and obviousness are:                                           
          Taylor                     4,231,056                Oct. 28, 1980           
          Muramatsu                  4,470,062                Sep.  4, 1984           
          Piotrowski                 4,665,425                May  12, 1987           
          The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:                              
               a) claims 4-6, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, 18 and 22-24 are rejected              
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu in               
          view of Piotrowski.                                                         
               b) claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 21 are rejected under                
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu and                    
          Piotrowski, further in view of Taylor.                                      
               The final rejection (Paper No. 8) fails to treat claim 20.             
          In its appeal brief, appellant has inferred that claim 20 would             
          have been included in the group of claims identified above as b)            
          and rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 over Muramatsu, Piotrowski and           
          Taylor on pages 3 and 4 of the final rejection.  For purposes of            
          this appeal, like appellant, we will treat claim 20 along with              
          claim 21, which depends from claim 20.                                      



                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007