Appeal No. 2001-0482
Application No. 09/186,078
differences between the limitations of the appealed claim 22 and each of the Rho and Gardner
references. It is apparent, however, from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer, that the
basis for the obviousness rejection is the combination of Rho and Gardner. As pointed out by the
Examiner (Answer, page 8), while Gardner does implant impurities at right angles, Rho provides a
clear teaching of implanting impurities at acute angles. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.
2d 1091, 1096, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the above reasons, since the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness remains
unrebutted by any convincing arguments of Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of representative independent claim 22, as well as dependent claims 23-30 and 33-35 which fall
with claim 22, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 31 and 32,
separately argued by Appellants, in which the Liaw reference is added to the combination of Rho
and Gardner to address the energy and dosage values limitations of these claims. In our view, as
pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 9), Liaw provides clear motivation, i.e., increasing the
value of threshold voltage Vt, for implanting impurities at the particular dosage and energy levels
claimed by Appellants in the device of Rho as modified by Gardner. It is not necessary that
references be combined for the same reason as Appellants. The reason or motivation to modify a
reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007