Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with
evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. Arguments which Appellant
could have made but elected not to make in the Brief have not
been considered in this decision (note 37 CFR § 1.192).
After reviewing Appellant’s arguments in response, we find
nothing more than bald assertions that a well region and a field
oxide thickness in the claimed range are not disclosed in
Nakano. These facts are not in dispute and, indeed, serve as
the starting point for the Examiner’s obviousness rejection as
discussed supra. Since there is nothing in Appellant’s response
which could serve to persuade us of any error in the Examiner’s
reasoning, it is our opinion that Appellant has not met the
burden of overcoming the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellant further argues (Brief, page 7) a lack of
disclosure in Nakano of an etched recess portion in the field
oxide layer as well as a lack of any teaching of the enhancing
of breakdown voltage of a p-n junction. We find neither of
these arguments to be persuasive. The fact that there is no
disclosure that the recessed portion of the field oxide layer in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007