Appeal No. 95-5041
Application No. 08/163,967
Examiner’s proffered combination. If a “combination
plate” is to be envisioned in accordance with the
Examiner’s reasoning, all of the Terashima plates
(16a through 16e) should be combined, thereby
resulting in a bridging of the entire region from
the high voltage diffusion region (11) to the low
voltage diffusion region (13). In other words, and
with reference to the terminology of the present
invention, this “combination plate” would create a
first field shield plate having one end in
electrical contact with the high voltage region and
the other end in electrical contact with the low
voltage region and extending above the major surface
over the entire junction extension region. Such a
result is exactly the configuration shown in
applicant’s prior art FIGS. 2A and 3A. There is no
teaching whatsoever, nor any suggestion in Terashima
or in any of the prior art to either shorten the
first field shield plate 30 or, in the alternative,
to extend the junction extension region 28 “so that
the junction extension (29) is positioned on the
major surface between the outer edge of the first
field shield plate and the outer edge of the second
field shield plate” as is expressly recited in
applicant’s claim 1.
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner
has simply exercised impermissible hindsight in
applying the Terashima reference in combination with
applicant’s prior art FIGS. 2A and 3A to reject
applicant’s claims.
We agree. In the absence of a teaching or suggestion in
the applied prior art or a convincing line of reasoning by the
examiner, the examiner cannot pick and choose among the
conductive plates 16a through 16e in Terashima to select only
those conductive plates (i.e., 16b through 16e) that terminate
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007