Appeal No. 1997-0601
Application 08/161,878
would have made it obvious for an artisan to provide different
size shorts in a three terminal device such as shown by Ohta
in Fig. 5. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, and hence, claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 over Ohta.
Claims 1 to 3, 6, 12 and 16
These claims are rejected as being obvious over Ohta in
view of Alonas.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not argued
this rejection with regard to 1, 2, 6, 12 and 16. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of 1, 2, 6, 12 and 16 over Ohta and
Alonas for the same reasons as above over Ohta alone.
With respect to claim 3, the Examiner contends [answer,
page 5] that “[i]t would have been obvious to have Ohta’s
device lateral, as in Alonas, rather than vertical.”
Appellants argue [brief, page 17] that “Alonas does nothing to
teach the existence of a three terminal device with all three
terminals on a single surface of the substrate, ... .”
We note that the Examiner is using Alonas only to show
[answer, pages 10 to 11] that “it was well-known to form
thyristor devices (Ohta, of course being a thyristor, a
combination of 4 layer PNPN structures) as lateral structures
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007