Appeal No. 1998-2044 Application No. 08/719,773 as teaching a shortened surface channel and a buried layer for carrier confinement. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to combine the teachings of Kagami and Yazawa [answer, page 4]. Appellants make the following arguments: 1) appellants argue that Yazawa does not disclose a surface channel region as asserted by the examiner, but only a buried channel region; 2) appellants argue that Kagami teaches only a surface channel region with no buried channel region; 3) appellants argue that there would be no basis for combining Kamagi’s surface channel features with Yazawa because Yazawa seeks to avoid any surface current; and 4) appellants argue that Yazawa teaches away from the alignment recited in claims 17-23 [brief, pages 7-11]. The examiner responds that the area under n+ region 27 in Kagami is a buried channel within appellants’ definition of the term [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellants respond that there is no buried channel in the Kagami device [reply brief]. We basically agree with each of appellants’ arguments set forth above. We do not accept the examiner’s position that the impurity region 27 of Kagami creates a buried channel region within appellants’ own definition. Appellants have 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007