Ex parte Lee et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 1998

07962544 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 19, 1992.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte STEVEN LEE and GAYLE MILLER
____________
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,5441
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, CARMICHAEL and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-2-
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 5-9 and 11. Claims 1-4 have been
withdrawn from consideration and claim 10 has been canceled.
The appellants’ claimed subject matter is a
monolithic semiconductor device having a field effect
transistor and a bipolar junction transistor. Claim 5 is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and recites:
5. A monolithic semiconductor device having a field
effect transistor and a bipolar junction transistor, the
bipolar junction transistor further comprising:
a collector of a first dopant type;
a base having an intrinsic concentration of a second
dopant type and forming a first PN junction with the
collector, the base including (i) an extrinsic contact region
characterized by a concentration of the second dopant which is
greater than the intrinsic concentration and (ii) a trenched
surface;
a pillar structure, comprising the second dopant
type, extending from the base and away from the trenched
surface;
an emitter of the first dopant type connected to the
pillar structure at a surface displaced from the base, the
emitter forming a PN junction with the pillar structure.
THE REFERENCES
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-3-
The following references were relied on by the
examiner:
Havemann 4,703,554 Nov. 3,
1987
Scovell et al. (Scovell) 4,745,080 May
17, 1988
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 5-9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Scovell in view of Havemann.
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions with respect to this rejection, we make reference to
the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19), the reply brief (Paper
No. 24) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied references and the
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-4-
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
The rejection is one made under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
note that in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make factual
determinations and to provide a reason why one having
ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from
some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a
whole or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary
skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins
& Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664
(Fed. Cir. 1985), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp.
Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-5-
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are
an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We consider first this rejection as it is directed
to claim 5. Scovell discloses, as is depicted in Figures 1-7,
a collector which is comprised of “n-type” single crystalline
silicon (Col. 1, lines 45-46). Mesa 7 is comprised of “n-
type” dopant and forms the emitter and does not comprise a
pillar structure comprising a second dopant type extending
from the base and away from the trenched surface. Nor is the
“emitter. . . connected to the pillar structure at a surface
displaced from the base”; it is connected at the surface.
Mesas 14 are comprised of “n-type” dopant and collector is
comprised of n-type material. Therefore, Scovell does not
disclose “a collector of a first dopant type . . . a pillar
structure, comprising a second dopant type” as recited in
claim 5. In addition, alignment mesas 14 do not extend from
the base 5 and are not connected to the emitter 7 as required
by claim 5. As such, neither mesa 7 nor mesas 14 meet the
limitations of claim 5. We have reviewed the disclosure of
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-6-
Havemann and have found no motivation to modify Scovell in the
manner proposed by the examienr. As such, we will not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claim 5 or claim 6
dependent therefrom.
We turn now to claim 7. Scovell discloses a base 5
which is comprised of a first dopant which is “p-type”.
However, even if the examiner’s finding that base 5 includes a
trenched extrinsic contact region is correct, Mesa 7 is
comprised of “n-type” dopant and forms the emitter and does
not comprise a pillar structure comprising a second type
extending from the base and away from the trenched surface.
Nor is the “emitter. . . connected to the pillar structure at
a surface displaced from the base”; it is connected at the
surface. Mesas 14 do not comprise the first dopant or “p-
type” dopant but are comprised of “n-type” dopant. In
addition, mesas 14 are not disposed so as to be “overlying a
non-trenched portion” of base 5 as recited in claim 7. dopant
Therefore, neither mesa 7 nor mesas 14 meet the limitations
recited in claim 7. We have reviewed the disclosure of
Havemann and have concluded that Havemann does not cure the
deficiencies of the Scovell reference nor provide motivation
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-7-
to modify the structure of Scovell. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 or of claim 8
dependent therefrom.
Claim 9 also recites that the pillar structure and
“the semiconductor of a first dopant type having a surface and
a pillar extending away from said surface.” The mesas 7 and
14 of Scovell do form a pillar extending away from the base 5.
The “semiconductor of the second dopant type” is connected to
the surface and not to a pillar. We have reviewed the
disclosure of Havemann and have concluded that Havemann does
not cure the deficiencies of the Scovell reference nor privide
motivation to modify the Scovall device as proposed by the
examiner. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 and claim 11 dependent therefrom.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-8-
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WAYNE P. BAILEY
SYMBIOS LOGIC INC.
2001 DANFIELD COURT, MAIL STOP E
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525

Appeal No. 95-4292
Application 07/962,544
-9-