Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
“48.” The elements referred to by appellant are in Figure 12;
they just are not labeled. Appellant should have indicated
that the thin oxide 48 is what was meant by the claimed
“insulating region” rather than have us resort to making a
finding that this, in fact, was what was intended. In any
event, we do find that “thin oxide 48” is sufficient support
for the now claimed “insulating region” in claim 5. Moreover,
since the “insulating region” was also part of original claim
5, there was clear support for such a recitation.
We now turn to the prior art rejections. We will sustain
the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 30 through 35, 42 and
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jain and Toyoshima as well as
the rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, 36 and 38 through 41 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 over Jain, Toyoshima, Mori, Furuhata, Lehrer, Nishizawa
and Liou. We will, however, not sustain the rejection of
claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the dopant concentration and depth
of regions 20 and 21 in Jain are not “independent” from one
another. Appellant also argues that Toyoshima appears to use
a double diffused drain that has disadvantages which the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007