Appeal No. 96-0471
Application 07/995,582
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to combine
because Tasch is directed to increasing breakdown voltages and
not to minimizing junction breakdown voltage instabilities due
to surface effects as in the present invention. "[T]he Tasch,
Jr. et al. reference could not possibly address the issue of
junction breakdown voltage instabilities since the reference
itself teaches and discloses the termination of the
metallurgical junction on the surface." (Br10.) The examiner
responds that Tasch discloses lowering the field crowding,
which stabilizes the junction breakdown voltage of a trench-
type device, which "is very similar to the objection [sic,
object] of the claimed invention" (EA10). The examiner
further states (EA11): "[T]he original specification never
shows the P+ region extends up to the sidewall of the trench.
Therefore, it is not necessary for Tasch to show such a
structure."
The examiner's obviousness rejection relies on the § 112,
first paragraph, lack of written description rejection in the
sense that the examiner states that it is not necessary for
Tasch to show the base region (claim 1) or the first polarity
region (claim 11) extending to the sidewalls of a trench,
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007