Appeal No. 1999-0887
Application No. 08/702,074
Lastly, with the above discussion in mind, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 21-23 based on the combination of Temple and Jenny.
Although Jenny provides a disclosure of the doping of silicon
with sulfur or selenium, dopants which have a donor energy
level greater than 0.1 eV in silicon, there is nothing which
would indicate the suitability of such a material for a
junction termination. We agree with Appellants (Brief, page
15) that, at best, Jenny provides a teaching of utilizing
sulfur and selenium doped silicon in the active region of a
semiconductor device. Such a teaching, however, falls well
short of providing motivation to the skilled artisan to
utilize such material in the junction termination region of a
semiconductor device, particularly in the manner specifically
set forth in the appealed claims.
We have also reviewed the Jaecklin and Okabe references
applied by the Examiner to address the stacked layers and
field ring structure, respectively, of several dependent
claims. We find nothing in either of these references,
however, that would overcome the innate deficiencies of the
Temple, Moore, Bemski, and Jenny references discussed
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007