Appeal No. 2003-0868 4
Application No. 09/710,101
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejection of the claims under §103(a) is
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections for the reasons discussed herein.
The Rejection under § 103(a)
It is the examiner’s position that, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the multiple dopant zones
as taught by Roth to Mojaradi’s high voltage transistor with a spiral resistor for the purpose
of increasing the output voltage endurance between the gate and drain as taught by Roth
[Roth column 3, lines 25-30].” See Answer, page 6. We disagree with the examiner’s
conclusion.
Mojaradi is directed to a high voltage transistor having a spiral transistor connected
between the gate and the drain. See Figure 2 and Brief, page 4. Both the examiner and
the appellant agree that Mojaradi does not teach a drift region in the substrate underneath
the spiral transistor having different dopant concentrations. See Answer, page 5 and Brief,
page 4. The examiner accordingly relies upon the teachings of Roth directed to a drift
region having multiple dopant areas, 24, 26 and 28 wherein the lowest dopant area is
closest to the plate and the highest dopant area is closest to the drain to replace the
constant doped drift region of Mojaradi. See Answer, pages 5 and 6.
As properly pointed out by the appellant, “the disclosure of the ‘916 patent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007