Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
region and the base contact region." Brief, page 37.
Appellants further argue that Sagara does not disclose a LOCOS
process to form the field oxide. Brief, page 38.
Claim 19, step (e) recites this limitation. It states,
19. (e) performing local oxidation of the surface of said
substrate to form field oxide having an aperture therethrough
overlying said second well region, such that said field oxide
does not overlie said first surface portion of said second
well region between said emitter region and said base contact
region.
We find that neither the admitted prior art, nor Tanabe
nor Sagara teaches Appellants' claim limitations as recited by
claim 19, step (e), supra. Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 19. Claims 20-23 depend from claim 19 and
we likewise reverse the rejection of these dependent claims.
Considering now independent claim 29, Appellant argues
that the cited prior art contains no teaching or suggestion of
LOCOS formation of the field oxide, so that the bird's beak
edge of the field oxide aperture is spaced apart from the
emitter region. Brief, page 42.
Claim 29, step (d) recites this limitation as follows:
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007