Appeal No. 1997-1757
Application No. 08/450,145
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, the examiner contends that there is no
support for the “carrier lifetime in said semiconductor layer
is different between substantially all of said current path
portion...and a remaining portion of said semiconductor layer”
recited in claims 5, 7 and 8. The examiner’s rationale is
based on appellant’s election of the insulated gate bipolar
transistor in Paper No. 9, such transistor being depicted in
Figures 15A, 15B and 15C, rather than the thyristor depicted
in Figures 3 and 7. Whereas Figures 3 and 7 depict, and
recitations in the specification regarding these figures
describe, the claimed “different” carrier lifetime, Figures
15A, 15B and 15C do not clearly depict the current path
portion, the path for most of the main current and the
remaining portion of the semiconductor and there is no
discussion regarding these elements with regard to Figures
15A, 15B and 15C.
We will not sustain this rejection since we agree with
appellant that Figures 3 and 7, and their attendant
description in the specification, which do, indeed, have
support for the allegedly objectionable claim language,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007