Appeal No. 2001-0929
Application No. 08/697,321
convincing evidence or reasoning to support this statement, other
than referring to Nakayama and Chan (Answer, page 14).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth 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.
As previously discussed, we therefore need not consider appellant’s
evidence of non-obviousness. See Geiger, supra. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 10 and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Nakayama in view of Chan and Kruger is reversed.
C. The Rejection over Nakayama, Chan, Kruger, Shohet and
Yoshida
We incorporate the analysis of the Nakayama, Chan and Kruger
references as discussed above. The examiner applies Shohet and
Yoshida for the teaching that BF3 was a known viable alternate
source gas for the boron doping of Nakayama (Answer, page 18).
Accordingly, the Shohet and Yoshida references do not remedy the
deficiencies discussed above in the proposed combination of
references.
The examiner also applies Shohet as “cumulative evidence” that
it would have been obvious to use either RF or D.C. voltage sources
for ion implantation with expectations of success (id.). However,
Shohet suffers from the same deficiency as Kruger and Chan, namely
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007