Appeal 2007-1234
Application 10/017,990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 21-24, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Husher.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 25, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Husher in view of
Taniguchi.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Husher in view of Sze.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
Independent claim 1
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being anticipated by Husher.
Appellants argue that Husher does not disclose the claimed “well”
[i.e., “a well formed in the first layer, wherein the well comprises a first
conductivity type and has a side dimension and a bottom dimension”] (Br. 4,
claim 1). Appellants note that the Examiner corresponds region 160 in the
Husher patent with the claimed “well” (see Husher, Fig. 3, col. 4, l. 1).
Appellants further note that Husher discloses: “P catch diffusion region 150
may be electrically connected, via annular P+ sinker region (or return
region) 160, to the collector terminal of the transistor” (see Husher, col. 3, l.
67 through col. 4, l. 2) (Br. 4, ¶ 1). Thus, Appellants conclude that region
160 is not a well region but is instead a sinker region as described by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013