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