Appeal No. 1999-1666
Application No. 08/847,319
lines 52-61) teaches the use of an organic compound of a
dopant species in a gas phase process for doping a
semiconductor wafer and that Bohling teaches the use of an
organic compound of a dopant species with a halogen species
for diffusion. However, the examiner’s rejection of claim 49
suffers from the same deficiency mentioned above with respect
to claim 4, that is, the examiner’s rejection again fails to
point to some teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either
in the prior art relied upon or in knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would
compel a practitioner in the art to replace the compound
taught by Kiyota with the compound taught by Zhang or Bohling
for directly doping a semiconductor wafer. Moreover, it
appears that the examiner’s obviousness rejection hinges
solely on the fact that the compounds are known dopant sources
and are therefore obvious. When the motivation to combine the
teachings of the references is not immediately apparent, it
becomes the duty of the examiner to explain why the
combination of the teachings is proper. Ex parte Skinner, 2
USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). We do not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007