Appeal No. 95-0326
Application No. 07/877,253
We fully agree with the appellant’s conclusion expressed in
the Briefs that the applied references and in particular
Cunningham would not have suggested providing Anderson’s process
with the step of introducing a Group VI element onto the surface
of an active (i.e., doped) region as required by step (b) of the
independent claims on appeal. This is because Cunningham, rather
than introducing such an element onto the surface of a doped
region, fabricates delta-doped layers of a Group VI element at a
distance from the metal-semiconductor junction (which corresponds
to the here claimed surface); e.g., see the paragraph bridging
columns 1 and 2 on page 2. We do not perceive and the examiner
does not explain how Cunningham’s step of fabricating delta-doped
layers at a distance from his metal-semiconductor junction would
have suggested (or inherently practiced) the here claimed step of
introducing a Group VI element onto the surface of the active
(i.e., doped) region whereat the appellant’s metal-semiconductor
junction is to be formed.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 28 through 31, 33 through 36, 38, 39
and 43 as being unpatentable over Anderson taken with Cunningham.
Moreover, since the above discussed deficiencies are not supplied
by the Nagaoka references, we also cannot sustain the § 103
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007