Ex parte Maegawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 1998

08304906 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 13, 1994.1
-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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SHIGETO MAEGAWA
______________
Appeal No. 97-0725
Application 08/304,9061
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-
21, 29-31, and 34, which constitute all the claims remaining in
the application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 97-0725
Application 08/304,906
-2-
1. A thin film transistor, comprising:
an active layer including a channel region of a first
conductivity type, a source region of a second conductivity type
adjacent to one end of the channel region, an offset region of
the first conductivity type having one end connected to another
end of said channel region, and a drain region of the second
conductivity type connected to another end of the offset region;
a first insulating film formed on a first surface of
said active layer;
a gate electrode formed at a position opposing to said
channel region with said first insulating film interposed; and
a second insulating film formed at a position opposing
to said offset region with said first insulating film interposed,
including an ion implanted impurity for forming charges in an
amount sufficient to reduce the leakage current.

The examiner’s answer cites admitted prior art and the
following reference:
Woods 4,007,294 Feb. 8, 1977
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Woods.
While the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness as to claims 1 and 6, the examiner has not stated a
prima facie case as to claims 11, 17, 20, and 21 because there is
no treatment of the penultimate recitation of each of these
claims.
Appeal No. 97-0725
Application 08/304,906
-3-
In response to the rejection, appellant argues inter
alia that application of Woods’ teachings to the admitted prior
art thin film transistor would render the transistor unsuitable
for its intended function because Woods’ application of 5,000
volts would exceed the transistor’s breakdown voltage. Appellant
supports his argument with reference to technical literature.
Appeal Brief at 16.
The examiner does not reply to that argument. Because
appellant’s argument appears reasonable on its face and the
examiner has not addressed it, we are constrained to reverse the
entire rejection on the present record.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is not sustained.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0725
Application 08/304,906
-4-
LOWE, PRICE, LEBLANC & BECKER
99 CANAL CENTER PLAZA, STE. 300
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314