Appeal No. 96-3105
Application 08/135,003
(col. 3, lines 57-59). This says nothing about grading in the
source near the channel region, which the examiner considers
the same as grading in the channel near the source. Saunier
does not cure this deficiency. We conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for
the claim limitations of "said channel region comprising
adjacent said source region a first portion having at least
one of a higher bandgap energy and a lower electron affinity
than a second portion extending between said first portion to
said drain region, whereby a quasi-electric field in said
channel region near said source region is created in order to
accelerate charge carriers and increase switching speed." The
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-19, and 30-36 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007