Appeal 2007-1552
Application 09/852,123
channel structure 16, and not to the longer channel length structures 18a-18d”
(Reply Br. 3). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
With regard to Appellants’ first argument, we note that the only reference in
Appellants’ drawings to the track resistor RB is in regard to the equivalent
structure of FIG. 2. However, similar to Avery’s Figure 7, FIG. 2 of Appellants’
Specification is merely an equivalent circuit and does not illustrate the actual
structure of a circuit. Therefore, using Appellants’ reasoning, there is no support in
the Specification for a single track resistor as claimed. Clearly, Appellants would
agree that such reasoning is unfounded.
With regard to Appellants’ second argument, we note that claim 1 does not
require a “gate electrode” which runs to each gate region, but rather only requires a
control connection connected to one of the voltage buses via a single track resistor.
Avery discloses the base and emitter regions/gates are short-circuited with each
other and connected to reference line 22 via the semiconductor substrate 12 and
electrode 24 (Finding of Fact 3). Furthermore, we find that the lightly-doped
substrate 12 of Avery meets the claimed “track resistor” giving that claim term its
broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification (Findings of Fact 8-
13). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Avery.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013