Appeal No. 1998-2925
Application 08/532,861
page 5). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in
each group, i.e., claims 1 and 11. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
The examiner relies upon Yoshizumi and Mitsui for
disclosures of the elements of appellants’ claims other than
the use of indium as a dopant (answer, pages 4 and 6-7).
Appellants do not challenge the rejection in this respect but,
rather, argue that there is no suggestion in the references to
combine their teachings, there is no suggestion to use only
indium as the dopant as required by claim 1, and there is no
suggestion to implant p-type dopant to a shallower depth than
the depth of indium as recited in claim 11 (brief, pages 5-
13).
The relevant disclosure in Lin regarding implanting
indium as required by claim 1 is: “We have investigated both
the single use of heavy group III (Ga and In) ions for
creating shallow junctions and the dual implant approach where
Ga or In was first used for preamorphization (and doping)
followed by a B or BF implant” (page 1790). Lin does not
2
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007