Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
examiner regarding the meaning of “independent” in claim 1 and
support for the “insulating region” in claim 5, we will,
nevertheless, not sustain these rejections.
With regard to claim 1, the examiner questions the
meaning of “independent,” indicating that the specification
suggests that “independent” refers to a process of formation.
The examiner refers to page 14, lines 8-11 of the
specification for the statement:
It is important to notice that the overlapped
lightly
doped source 18 and drain 26 regions have been
formed
independently of non-overlapped portions 16 and 24
with
respect to doping concentration and junction depth.
The examiner further cites page 4, lines 14-15 of the
specification, wherein it is stated that “the overlapped and
the non-overlapped portions of the source and drain junctions
are formed independently from each other...”
Thus, the specification would appear to indicate that the
term “independent,” when used in conjunction with the first
and second selected doping concentration and junction depth
being “independent” of each other, does indeed, refer to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007