Appeal No. 96-4103
Application 08/363,479
U.S.C. § 103, the artisan must be aware of the modifications
that need to be made.
For all the reasons discussed above, we agree with
appellants that the invention of claims 1 and 5 is not
rendered obvious by the teachings of Yokoyama taken alone.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 5. We note that dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12
all include the limitations of independent claims 1 or 5.
None of the other applied prior art references as cited in the
answer teaches an emitter layer of a transistor being made
from AlGaAs in which the aluminum mole fraction exceeds 0.5.
Therefore, neither Ohshima, Kusano, Shimura nor Yokoyama ’724
overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the primary
Yokoyama reference. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
any of claims 1-12.
Independent claim 21 differs from claims 1 and 5 in
that it recites that the emitter structure comprises a ballast
resistor layer of Al Ga As where x>0.4 and an active emitter
x 1-x
layer of Al Ga As where x#0.4 adjacent a base layer. In
x 1-x
rejecting claim 21, the examiner adds Ohshima to Yokoyama as
teaching an Al Ga As graded layer between the base layer and
x 1-x
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007