Appeal No. 1997-3512 Page 7
Application No. 08/482,034
characteristics.” It is the examiner’s position (final
rejection, page 3; and answer, page 4) that it would therefore
have been obvious to have selected the doping concentration of
base layer 12 to be approximately the same or the same as
layer 13 “as desired in order to meet device characteristics
such as reducing the spreading resistance due to high doping
concentration which, in turn, increases in [sic: the]
operational speed of the transistor” (final rejection, page
3). The fact that Gaw discloses that the doping concentration
of base layer 12 can be modified to meet device
characteristics does not suggest the specific doping
concentration of base layer 12 set forth in the claims. We
find that Gaw teaches away from providing both base layers
with approximately the same doping concentrations by
specifically providing for a heavily doped layer on top of a
lighter doped layer to affect the magnitude of the
accelerating field in order to enhance current flow.
Appellants’ position (brief, bridging pages 4 and 5)is
that:
Claim 17 is nonobvious over Gaw in part because that
reference teaches away from the claimed invention.
Gaw teaches away from any doping configuration other
than that shown in Figure 1 by teaching that an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007