Appeal No. 95-2928
Application No. 07/769,185
do not contain any of the p-conductivity type dopant used
to form the halo regions.
Appellant disputes the examiner’s interpretation of
Lineback and contends, via arguments and the Cunningham
declarations, that there is no suggestion in Lineback
that the dopants which make up the halo regions would be
excluded from the rest of the source/drain area and that
there is no suggestion anywhere in Lineback that a masked
halo or LDD implant, which would exclude such diffusions
from most of the source/drain area, should be used.
Appellant further contends [page 4, principal brief] that
the Lineback drawing does not show the extent of the halo
diffusion inside the n+ source/drain area “because the n+
diffusion is deeper and heavier and would swamp the
dopant” of the halo diffusion.
We see no problem making the combination of Lineback
with the teachings of Bergonzoni and Liou, the motivation
being provided by the advantages taught by Lineback for
his structure, even if the purpose was not for
appellant’s purpose. The problem we do find, however, is
that even if we combine the teachings of these
references, the combination does not result in the
decision herein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007