Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the
invention as set forth in claims 2, 3, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 33.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2, 3, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 33.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 5, 7,
9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38, 42 and 44 as Being
Unpatentable over the combination of Marty with Wen, Ohmi,
Rodgers, Akatsu, Sato, Ju, Botula or Triveda Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 4 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18,
20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38, 42 and 44, Appellants argue at pages 21
through 33 of the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the combination of
Marty with Wen, Ohmi, Rodgers, Akatsu, Sato, Ju, Botula or
Triveda does not render the cited claims unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). First, Appellants submit 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.
4 We note that Appellants failed to particularly discuss the limitations of
these dependent claims in the Briefs. Instead, Appellants rely on their
earlier discussion of the limitations of independent claims 45 and 24, which
they incorporate by reference in each instance. Consequently, our finding for
representative claim 45 applies to these dependent claims as well.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007