Appeal No. 94-2080
Application 07/982,068
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. The necessary
burden has not been met.
Additionally, with respect to independent claim 7 and claims
8 and 9 which depend from claim 7, these claims require a region
of high [dopant] concentration in at least one of the four corner
parts of the rectangular recess. In our view, this feature must
reasonably be construed so as to require a higher dopant
concentration in at least one corner of the recess than that
generally in the non-corner areas of the recess. Th examiner
stated that in Wickstrom a high concentration N+ region extends
to all corners of the groove. However, that does not satisfy the
claimed feature as we have construed.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wickstrom, Imaizumi, and Castrucci.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being without written description in the
specification is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7-11 stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007