Appeal No. 96-0019
Application 08/150,742
If appellant’s claimed intervals equalize temperature
distribution as disclosed, and if Fukino’s intervals equalize
temperature distribution as taught therein, one must conclude
that the differences only result from the fact that the Fukino
transistor is different from appellant’s transistor. Therefore,
we are of the view that if appellant’s heterojunction transistor
with equal junction intervals existed in the prior art, the
claimed interval modifications to equalize temperature would have
been compelled by the calculations suggested by Fukino. Since
all the evidence in this case supports the position that the
transistor with equal junction intervals existed in the prior
art, we conclude that the claimed intervals for this particular
prior art transistor would have been obvious to the artisan when
trying to equalize the junction temperatures of this transistor.
For all the reasons just discussed, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24. Since dependent
claims 25-28 stand or fall with claim 24, supra, we also sustain
the rejection of these claims. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 24-28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007