Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are
an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We consider first this rejection as it is directed
to claim 5. Scovell discloses, as is depicted in Figures 1-7,
a collector which is comprised of “n-type” single crystalline
silicon (Col. 1, lines 45-46). Mesa 7 is comprised of “n-
type” dopant and forms the emitter and does not comprise a
pillar structure comprising a second dopant type extending
from the base and away from the trenched surface. Nor is the
“emitter. . . connected to the pillar structure at a surface
displaced from the base”; it is connected at the surface.
Mesas 14 are comprised of “n-type” dopant and collector is
comprised of n-type material. Therefore, Scovell does not
disclose “a collector of a first dopant type . . . a pillar
structure, comprising a second dopant type” as recited in
claim 5. In addition, alignment mesas 14 do not extend from
the base 5 and are not connected to the emitter 7 as required
by claim 5. As such, neither mesa 7 nor mesas 14 meet the
limitations of claim 5. We have reviewed the disclosure of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007