Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 14, 17, 18, and 31 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Au in view of Brady. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.
Claims 24 and 26 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ker in view of Au and Brady. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 6 through 8 of the Answer.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ker in view of Au, Brady and Sasaki. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (filed April
14, 2006), and the Answer (mailed June 19, 2006) for the respective details
thereof.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues, on page 7 through 9 of the Brief, that Au can not be
combined with Brady as the circuit of Au would not be operable in a Silicon
Over Insulator (SOI) structure. Appellant reasons that the N-well of the
Silicon Controlled Rectifier (SCR) such as used by Au can not be fabricated
using SOI technology1. Further, on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, Appellant
argues that if Au’s circuit were transferred to SOI technology the operability
of Au would be destroyed as Au’s device relies upon the body being non-
floating. Appellant reasons that “the technologies with respect to the body
potential are fundamentally different, and teachings related to bodies of non-
1 Appellant cites no evidence to support the assertion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013