Appeal No. 95-2928
Application No. 07/769,185
obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. ' 103, based on
such evidence.
Taking independent claim 18 as exemplary
(independent claims 23 and 31 include similar, but not
exact, language), the limitation of particular interest
herein is
wherein those portions of said source/drain
regions which are spaced further from said gate
electrode than the relatively short distance do
not contain the first conductivity type dopant
used to form the halo regions.
Both parties agree that neither of the Bergonzoni or
Liou references discloses or suggests that the halo
regions should be formed only in the area adjacent the
gate electrode since the halo region 13’ in Bergonzoni
appears to underlie all portions of n+ drain region 31
and LDD region 19’ while, in Liou, nothing appears to
suggest that the halo region be restricted to the gate
electrode area.
The examiner relies on Lineback, specifically the
figure at the top right on page 54, to show that it was
known to establish a halo region, shown with conductivity
p around the gate electrode region while the remainder of
the source and drain regions, heavily doped n+ regions,
the examiner and will not be considered by us in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007