Appeal No. 2000-1389
Application No. 08/949,826
"n" to "n+" on page 13, line 2. Also, the examiner objects to
the corresponding proposed drawing correction changing "n-" to
"n+" in Figures 1 and 2A-2D. Lastly, the examiner objects to
amending Figure 1 to differentiate between tank and moat regions
"when they mean the same thing in the specification" (Answer,
page 3).
Regarding the first change to the specification, appellants
clearly state in the specification that the first and second
doped regions (elements 13 and 46, respectively) are both of the
second conductivity type and that the second doped region (46) is
a further doped part of already doped first region (13). Thus,
the second doped region must have a greater doping concentration
than the first doped region as it is doped a first time with the
first doped region and a second time by itself. Therefore, page
5, line 20, and page 6, line 10, where the specification reads
that the second doping concentration is less than the first, are
clearly in error and should be changed as amended to be
consistent with the rest of the disclosure. Accordingly, we find
that no new matter has been added by the amendment.
As to the amendment of "n" to "n+" on page 13, line 2, and
in the drawings, the original disclosure (page 10, lines 10-11)
read, "The tunnel diode region 16 has an n+ doped diffused tunnel
region 46 below a rectangular tab portion 20 ...." Thus, there
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007