Appeal No. 2001-0297
Application No. 09/196,375
a second emitter region within said second base region.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Akcasu 4,644,383 Feb. 17, 1987
Maeda et al. (Maeda) 5,014,106 May 07, 1991
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3-5 and 8-10
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of
Akcasu.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Jun. 14, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Mar. 14, 2000) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed Jul. 24, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007