Appeal No. 96-1549
Application 08/296,988
claim 10 at issue in this appeal. In affirming a rejection of
claim 9 for obviousness over Wordeman in view of Bakeman, the
Board stated:
. . . [W]e note that it is the upper surface of the
buried P layer that provides all of the advantages described
by appellant in the specification. As indicated supra, the
upper surface of the buried P layer is located at one
distance from the capacitor region, and is located at
another distance from the transistor region. The
specification is completely silent concerning any advantage
that is gained by having the entire lower surface of the
buried P layer in contact with the substrate. For this
reason, we find that it would have been manifestly obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the N layer
that lies buried under a portion of the buried P layer in
Figure 6 of Wordeman. [Paper No. 24, at 5.]
Appellant argues that when considered without reference to
Appellant's specification, Wordeman fails to suggest that the n-
type grid can be omitted and the p-type layer used alone to
collect radiation-generated minority carriers. We agree. In
Wordeman, the function of collecting the radiation-generated
minority carriers is performed primarily by the n-type buried
grid (Wordeman at 40, 2d col.); the primary function of
Wordeman's p-type layer is to prevent "punch through" to the n-
type grid from reverse-biased surface elements (Wordeman at 41,
1st col.). Although, as noted above, Wordeman discloses that the
p-type layer additionally prevents minority carriers from passing
through the grid openings and diffuses them sideways to be
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007