Appeal No. 2006-0255
Application No. 09/839,596
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how the invention of claim 5
reads on the disclosure of Huang [answer, page 3]. Appellants
argue that no device in Huang can be characterized as an LDMOS
device. Appellants also argue that the examiner has
mischaracterized the device of Huang [brief, pages 5-6]. The
examiner responds that an LDMOS device is the same as an IGBT
device except for the presence of an additional diode. The
examiner also asserts that claim 5 only refers to an LDMOS device
in the preamble, but the body of the claim reads on the Huang
device. The examiner reiterates that the invention as broadly
disclosed and as recited in claim 5 can be read on the device
disclosed by Huang [answer, pages 7-10].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5. We
agree with the examiner that the recitation of an LDMOS device in
the preamble of claim 5 does not patentably distinguish over the
device of Huang. The key question is whether the structure
recited within the body of claim 5 exists within the device
disclosed by Huang. One cannot make an old structure patentable
by calling it something else. We also agree with the examiner
that appellants’ disclosure describes an LDMOS device by noting a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007