Appeal No. 96-2528
Application 08/011,202
As to the argument presented at the middle of page 4 of
the brief, the examiner’s statement of the rejection of claim
1 at pages 5 and 6 of the answer correlates Yamada’s teachings
to the claimed forbidden regions in the channel region. As to
the two-dimensional verses three-dimensional argument at the
bottom of page 4 of the brief, we are in agreement with the
examiner’s position set forth at the middle of page 10 of the
answer. It appears that the three-dimensional characteristics
of Yamada relate to this argument as confirmed by the Figure 1
(a) top view showing taken with the Figure 1 (b) cross-
sectional view of Onda’s striped channel FET at page 125 of
his article.
The examiner’s position at page 11 of the answer
addresses the features of dependent claim 2 and meets
appellants’ arguments at the bottom of page 5 of the brief.
Although the specific recitation of the composition of the
forbidden regions in claim 3 is expressed at the bottom of
page 5 of the brief, they have not been apparently directly
addressed by the examiner. We note that the Yamada’s
disclosure teaches in terms of plural different “types” of
semiconductor material relating to the expressly identified
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007