Appeal No. 95-4174
Application 08/165,553
must exist, i.e., the structure recited must not be in a
double-polysilicon layer device.
Since neither Homma nor Schaber nor Soejima teaches or
suggests each and every element of the claimed invention, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 14 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Homma (claims 14 and 21) or
Schaber (claims 14 through 19) or the rejection of claims 14
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Soejima.
Turning to the rejection of claims 14 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) over Maeda, we will sustain this rejection.
The examiner details the rejection and how the claimed
elements are met by Maeda at page 8 of the answer. Appellants
agree that Maeda does, indeed, teach a single polysilicon
layer BiCMOS structure [pages 9-10 of the brief]. Appellants
argue only that, in Maeda, the dielectric layer and the gate
dielectric are the same and so there is no teaching in Maeda
that the dielectric layer between the emitter electrode and
the intrinsic base region is different, in thickness, from the
gate dielectric layer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007