Ex Parte Babcock et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0188                                                        
          Application No. 09/949,541                                                  

               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.   An integrated circuit trim resistor structure with on-            
               chip heaters, comprising:                                              
                    providing a substrate with at least one isolation                 
               structure;                                                             
                    a doped polysilicon trim resistor structure on said               
               isolation structure; and                                               
                    at least one heating structure on said isolation                  
               structure adjacent to said trim resistor structure and                 
               separated from said trim resistor structure by a heat                  
               conducting electrical insulator.                                       
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Spraggins et al. (Spraggins) 5,466,484            Nov. 14, 1995             
          Singh et al. (Singh)     US 2002/0008302 A1       Jan. 24, 2002             
                                   (effective filing date Apr. 26, 2000)              
               Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.            
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spraggins in view of Singh.             
               Reference is made to the supplemental brief, the reply brief           
          and the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and           
          the examiner.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,            
          9, 11 and 12.                                                               

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007