Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
to modify the structure of Scovell. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 or of claim 8
dependent therefrom.
Claim 9 also recites that the pillar structure and
“the semiconductor of a first dopant type having a surface and
a pillar extending away from said surface.” The mesas 7 and
14 of Scovell do form a pillar extending away from the base 5.
The “semiconductor of the second dopant type” is connected to
the surface and not to a pillar. We have reviewed the
disclosure of Havemann and have concluded that Havemann does
not cure the deficiencies of the Scovell reference nor privide
motivation to modify the Scovall device as proposed by the
examiner. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 and claim 11 dependent therefrom.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007