Appeal No. 95-0634 Page 5
Application 07/962,322
cluster layer. Two different two-dimensional cluster
distributions (not in the same plane) necessarily describe a
three-dimensional cluster distribution. The placement of one
cluster layer over the other cluster layer necessarily creates an
overlap between the two cluster layers in the dimension through
the thickness of the insulating layer. Appellant does not argue,
and Yamazaki does not teach, that the geometries of the cluster
layers are such that no overlap occurs.
10. Yamazaki does not expressly disclose a portion of the
drain region beneath the insulating layer. "An anticipatory
reference, however, need not duplicate word for word what is in
the claims. Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is
'inherent' or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference."
Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner
found that "there would be some overlap of the clusters and the
drain due to the spreading of the drain caused by migration of N
type impurities in the drain during processing." (Paper 9 at 3.)
We find this explanation to be credible.
11. Once the examiner establishes a basis for inherency,
the burden shifts to appellant to prove that the prior art does
not possess that inherent characteristic. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant has
not met this burden. Instead, Appellant notes that Yamazaki does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007