Appeal No. 2001-0929
Application No. 08/697,321
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence.
Therefore we need not reach the issue of appellant’s evidence of
non-obviousness, i.e., the Declarations under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Lee
and Liebert (Exhibits B and C attached to the Brief). See In re
Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 27-32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gruen in view of Chan and Matossian is
reversed.
B. The Rejection over Nakayama, Chan and Kruger
The examiner finds that Nakayama teaches implanting dopants in
a semiconductor substrate via a pulsed plasma where the
intermittently applied R.F. power has a D.C. potential of -700
volts, thus lacking the D.C. voltage required by the claims on
appeal (Answer, page 12). The examiner applies Chan as discussed
above, for the teaching of ion implantation on a substrate
intermittently charged with a negative D.C. potential via direct
application of D.C. (Answer, page 16). The examiner further
applies Kruger for the teaching that wafers to be treated by ion
implanting or ion back sputtering may use an electrical bias
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007