Appeal No. 1997-1034
Application No. 08/279,135
Examiner has not clearly shown that the reference teaches that the ion implantation is
made to the gate of the transistors as set forth in the language of claim 1. The Examiner’s
citation to Klein further does not clearly identify that the disclosed teachings are relevant to
use in a memory circuit as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, appellant argues that Klein does not suggest “two different doping levels
for the same gate type in the same integrated circuit. Consequently, Miyaji and Klein do
not suggest the claim 1 requirement to two doping levels of the same type in a single
circuit.” (See brief at page 3.) While this argument goes beyond the express language of
the limitations set forth in claim 1, we agree with the basic premise of appellant's argument
concerning the two different conductivities in the same memory circuit. While Klein
teaches varying the doping of the gate of the transistor, Klein does not expressly teach or
suggest the use of two different doping levels or conductivities on a single integrated
circuit. While Miyaji teaches that the access transistor should have a lower threshold
voltage in the memory circuit, Miyaji is silent with respect to
using two different doping levels or conductivities in the memory. The Examiner has not
provided a convincing line of reasoning why a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to combine the two teachings beyond stating that the electrodes of Miyaji “need
doping in order to perform their function as an electrode, and varying the doping . . . would
have been a very convenient manner of creating the threshold differences
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007