Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
the Examiner finds that Au teaches the claimed circuit
elements arranged as claimed. (Answer 3).
2. The Examiner finds that Au does not teach that the circuit
elements are made using SOI technology. (Answer 3)
3. Appellant’s arguments do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings identified in Fact 1.
4. Au teaches the circuit 40 is a SCR. (Col. 4, l. 60).
5. Au depicts the physical arrangement of the circuit in figure
4a.
6. The Examiner finds that Brady teaches that using SOI
technology instead of regular silicon technology provides the
advantages of increased processing speed and lower power
consumption. (Answer 3).
7. The Examiner finds that “‘the body that is floating with
respect to an underlying substrate’ on line 3 of claim 14 is
met when fabricate the device by using SO1 technology (i.e.,
the body of Q1, Figure 4b in the above modification is
floating with respect to an underlying substrate) because the
body of an SOI MOSFET is floating with respect to an
underlying substrate.” (Answer 4).
8. The Examiner finds Chen and Chatterjee teach that SCRs can
be manufactured using SOI technology. (Answer 9-10).
9. We find that Chen teaches a SCR made using SOI
technology. (See title, Abstract, col. 4, ll. 8-11).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013