Appeal No. 1999-1517
Application No. 08/837,523
‘However, essentially none of the boron in polysilicon gate
110 or spaces [sic, spacers] 112 diffuses into device region
102.’” We do not agree with appellants’ assertion that this
satisfies the written description requirement in the instant
case. The boron is defined to be an element of second
conductivity in the specifi-cation and not of first
conductivity as recited in the phrase under discussion.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner and find that the
specification lacks an adequate written description of the
recited phrase. We sustain the rejection of claim 11, and its
dependent claims 12 to 29, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first para-
graph. Claim 30, containing the same phrase, also falls with
claim 11.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Byun and Ehinger.
In our analysis here, we are guided by the general
proposition that in an appeal involving a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner is under a burden to make out a
prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is met, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007