Appeal No. 2000-1483
Application No. 08/851,608
deeper into the substrate 21 than V-slots 31. Appellants argue
merely that there is "no corresponding verbal teaching in
Tonnel’s specification regarding this spatial relationship
between V-slots 31 and P-type region 22" (brief, page 6). Thus,
appellants conclude that the examiner’s rationale is based on
hindsight and speculation and urge that such "speculation and
hindsight reconstruction cannot supplement the absence of
teaching in Tonnel regarding the spatial relationship discussed
above and recited in Applicants' claims" (brief, page 6).
Merely because Tonnel does not verbally teach the spatial
relationship between V-slots 31 and P-type region 22, this does
not vitiate the clear teaching of what is shown in Tonnel’s
Figures 10-12 regarding the claimed spatial relationship.
Appellants do not dispute what is shown in these Figures of
Tonnel nor do appellants offer any other explanation of what is
shown by Tonnel and how the claimed structure distinguishes
thereover. The examiner is not speculating if the Figures of the
reference show the claimed structure.
Appellants further argue that claim 17 recites a limitation,
viz., "wherein breakdown in said trench DMOS transistor occurs
across said epitaxial layer at a position closer to said first
location than said second location," which results from the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007