Appeal No. 2006-3106
Application 10/209,746
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368-69, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited in independent claim
1 and find that claim 1 requires that for a single transistor that there be
“field plate comprises a plurality of connection locations and a plurality of
electrical connectors connecting said plurality of connection locations to a
potential.” Appellants argue that D’Anna does not teach more than one
connection to a potential for the field plate (Br. 4).
We agree with Appellants and find that the Examiner has not shown
an express teaching in D’Anna for the plurality of connection locations and
that these plural connections are to a [singular/same] potential. The
Examiner maintains that columns 4 and 13 of D’Anna teach the plural
connections which would be to the backside and to the source (Answer 7-8).
We do not find that the express language or the figures of D’Anna expressly
supports the Examiner’s position. Additionally, the Examiner maintains that
“[t]his additional disclosure [of D’Anna] strongly suggests to the ordinary
artisan that shield plate has two connections, one to the backside and another
to the source region.” We are left with the conclusion that the Examiner
may actually be relying upon obviousness by the above statement yet the
Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. With that said, we
make no findings concerning obviousness to independent claims 1 and 11
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007