Appeal No. 2001-0555
Application No. 09/026,093
gate having an actual length smaller than 0.1 µm,
it is considered a well founded combination which
makes obvious the invention of claim 5 (and
appealed claim 1). As such, the limitation that
the gate length be less than 0.1 µm is considered
met by the combination of Liu and Yoshitomi et
al..
In our view, the Examiner seems to admit that Liu does not
teach the length of the gate being less than 0.1 µm as recited in
claim 1. Even though the Examiner makes a general allegation
that since Liu recites that the gate length could be anything
less than 0.5 µm, there is no incentive or suggestion in Liu
which would lead an artisan to come up with the recited gate
length being 0.1 µm or less. Furthermore, we keep in mind that
the rejection on appeal is over Liu alone and not over Liu and
Yoshitomi et al. Therefore, for the analysis of claim 1 under
this rejection, the teaching Yoshitomi is not considered.
Appellants further argue (brief at page 7) that “[t]he
disclosure of Liu fails to mention anywhere therein that the
junctions between the source/channel and the drain/channel
regions are abrupt [as recited in claim 1].” The Examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007