Appeal No. 1997-2846
Application 08/388,599
portion of said second semiconductor layer and said third
semiconductor layer, density Jpr of current flowing in said
second semiconductor layer right under said third
semiconductor layer when main current with magnitude
corresponding to rated current of the device is passed between
said first main electrode and said second main electrode, a
ratio m of said predetermined limit current value and said
rated current, and resistivity P of said second semiconductor
pn
layer right under said third semiconductor layer.
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Temple EP 0 159,663 A2 Oct. 30, 1985
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Temple.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief and the
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
disagree with the Examiner that claim 7 is anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Temple.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007