Ex parte PLUMTON et al. - Page 6




              Appeal No. 1998-2962                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/485,079                                                                                  


              perpendicular to the collector with surface oriented (100) within 0.5.  Appellants point out               
              that Miyazawa has implanted extrinsic base regions 11 in the collector 2, and not                           
              extrinsic base fingers on the collector with sidewalls perpendicular to the (100) surface.                  
              The examiner’s response is merely to dismiss the argument as attacking the applied                          
              references individually.  However, since appellants point out claimed subject matter which                  
              is apparently missing from Miyazawa and that subject matter is not provided for by Rode,                    
              the argument is really that the argued distinction is missing from either reference.  Since                 
              the examiner has not pointed to anything in either reference that suggests the claimed                      
              extrinsic base fingers with sidewalls perpendicular to the collector with surface oriented                  
              (100) within 0.5, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with                  
              regard to the subject matter of claims 14 and 15.                                                           
                     We have sustained the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.  103 and the                        
              rejection of claims 10-13 under double patenting.  We have not sustained the rejection of                   
              claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                                                     
                     Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.                                            










                                                            6                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007