Appeal No. 96-1512
Application 08/297,279
Appellants argue that the collective teachings of the
applied prior art do not support the examiner’s conclusion.
Specifically, appellants argue that claim 1 is directed to the
interconnection of two RITTs having a specific relationship
between the gate materials and that none of the applied
references suggests the interconnection as specifically recited
in claim 1 [brief, pages 3-5].
Based upon the evidence of record provided in this case,
we agree with appellants that the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness has not been properly established. The examiner has
essentially equated the relationship between Zhu’s P-channel and
N-channel materials with the claimed relationship between the
gate materials of a first and second RITT as recited in claim 1.
The applied prior art only establishes that it was known that
different compound semiconductor materials had different energy
bands which would permit tunneling to occur in a semiconductor
device. This prior art, however, does not suggest that two RITTs
should be interconnected as recited in claim 1 with the gate
materials as specifically claimed. We do not agree with the
examiner’s finding that the FET teachings of Zhu are teachings of
the interconnection of two RITTs [answer, page 5].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007