Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
Havemann and have found no motivation to modify Scovell in the
manner proposed by the examienr. As such, we will not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claim 5 or claim 6
dependent therefrom.
We turn now to claim 7. Scovell discloses a base 5
which is comprised of a first dopant which is “p-type”.
However, even if the examiner’s finding that base 5 includes a
trenched extrinsic contact region is correct, Mesa 7 is
comprised of “n-type” dopant and forms the emitter and does
not comprise a pillar structure comprising a second 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 do not comprise the first dopant or “p-
type” dopant but are comprised of “n-type” dopant. In
addition, mesas 14 are not disposed so as to be “overlying a
non-trenched portion” of base 5 as recited in claim 7. dopant
Therefore, neither mesa 7 nor mesas 14 meet the limitations
recited in claim 7. We have reviewed the disclosure of
Havemann and have concluded that Havemann does not cure the
deficiencies of the Scovell reference nor provide motivation
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007