Ex parte BEASOM - Page 9

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

               We are of the opinion that the subject matter of claim 22,             
          and thus that of claims 23, 4-6, 8, 9, 13-15, 17 and 18, would              
          have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time           
          the invention was made.  As noted by the examiner, in FIG. 9,               
          which is analogous to appellant's FIG. 1, Piotrowski shows a                
          high-to-low impurity concentration junction intersecting an                 
          insulating material at the sidewalls of the semiconductor island            
          region and a PN junction below contact 156 in the island region             
          spaced apart from the sidewalls.  To extend the corresponding               
          junction to the sidewalls in the embodiment of FIG. 2 of                    
          Muramatsu or, in the alternative, to space the PN junction formed           
          at P-type region 31 from the sidewalls of the semiconductor                 
          island region would have been obvious in view of the                        
          aforementioned teachings of Piotrowski.  The suggestion to                  
          combine the teachings of the references flows from the fact that            
          each concerns semiconductor structure having surface island                 
          regions formed by isolation walls.  Appellant does not assert               
          unexpected results from extending the aforementioned junction of            
          Muramatsu's FIG. 2 embodiment or spacing region 31 of the                   
          reference's FIG. 5g embodiment or even argue against the                    
          obviousness of combining Muramatsu and Piotrowski with respect to           
          this subject matter.  Appellant merely states to the effect that            


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007