Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
29. (d) performing local oxidation of the surface of said
substrate to form a field oxide having an aperture
therethrough overlying said second well region, such that a
first 'bird's beak' edge of said aperture through said field
oxide is spaced apart from said emitter region by a first
surface portion of said second well region therebetween; and
We find that neither the admitted prior art, Tanabe, nor
Sagara teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the
limitations of Appellants' claim 29, step (d). The Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case. Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 29. Claims 31 and
32 depend from claim 29 and we likewise reverse the rejection
of these dependent claims.
Based on the foregoing, in summary, we affirm the
rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 24, 25 and 28 as
unpatentable over the cited prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
we reverse the rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-23, 26, 27,
29, 31 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007