Appeal 2007-1552
Application 09/852,123
2) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avery and Smith.
3) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avery, Smith, and Li.
4) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Avery, Smith, Li,
and Wong.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include:
1. Avery teaches an electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection device for
protecting integrated circuits (Avery, col. 1, ll. 6-9).
2. The effective equivalent circuit of the protection device, shown in
Fig. 7, includes a parasitic NPN transistor QS provided by the short channel length
structure 16 and a plurality of parasitic NPN transistors QL provided by the
plurality of longer channel length structures 18. The NPN transistor QS has its
collector electrode connected to bus 20 through collector resistor RC and its
emitter electrode connected to the reference line 22 through emitter resistor RE,
and its base electrode connected in common with the base electrode of NPN
transistor QL via the common substrate 12 and through emitter-base shunt
resistance RS to the reference line 22 (Avery, col. 6, ll. 37-53).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013