Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
and Sagara individually do not teach the depth limitation.
Although we appreciate Appellants' argument that neither
Tanabe nor Sagara teach that the depths of the respective base
and well regions are the same, Appellants' argument is
unpersuasive here where the Examiner relies solely on the
admitted prior art for the rejection of this claim limitation
and excludes the teaching of Tanabe and Sagara from
consideration.
Next, Appellants argue that Tanabe contains no disclosure
or suggestion of making the emitter region deeper and doping
concentration greater than that of source and regions of a MOS
device in a same depth well. Brief, page 32. Further,
Appellants argue that Sagara discloses a method of
manufacturing a BiCMOS device that is considerably different
from that of either the prior art or Appellants' claims and
emphasize that Sagara does not implant an emitter region but
rather out diffuses it from a doped surface. Brief, page 33.
Our review of Sagara finds that Sagara teaches the claim
limitation "forming an emitter region . . . such that said
emitter region has . . . a third depth from said first surface
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007