Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
collector as claimed based on the finding that such method is
used to form the sub collector region and this method is a widely
known and used method for making doped semiconductor regions. We
conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of this claim.
Appellants argue in the Appeal and Reply Briefs that Marty
does not render the subject matter of the independentclaims
obvious. Particularly, Appellants reiterate the arguments
previously submitted in their discussion of independent claims 24
and 45. Appellants resubmit that Marty does not teach an n-type
dopant region having a vertical width (W) that is sufficiently
narrow to avoid lowering the collector base breakdown voltage and
a dopant concentration sufficiently high to restrict base
widening when the base junction is forward biased. We have
already addressed this argument in the discussion of
representative claim 45 above, and we do not agree with
Appellants. Consequently, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
stated position, which concludes that Marty teaches an n-type
dopant region having a vertical width (W) that is sufficiently
narrow to avoid lowering the collector base breakdown voltage and
a dopant concentration sufficiently high to restrict base
widening when the base junction is forward biased.With respect to
the subject matter of claim 22, Appellants have not sufficiently
rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness. It is therefore
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007