Appeal No. 2002-1411
Application No. 09/144,535
skill would have a reasonable expectation of success. Both the
suggestion and the reasonable expectation of success must be
founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure. In
re Vaeck, 947 F.2d, 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991). For the reasons discussed below, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a reasonable expectation of
success in making the claimed semiconductor device if the
teachings of Mihara are modified in view of Coe.
The examiner relies on Mihara as disclosing the invention as
claimed with the exception that “Mihara does not teach a gate
insulator extending to the side wall, and body and source regions
being formed self-aligned to the gate at their outer perimeter
and self-aligned to the sidewall of the recess at their inner
perimeter, respectively.” Examiners answer, page 7. The
examiner relies on Coe for a teaching of a DMOS device comprising
a recess having a gate insulator extending into the sidewall of
the recess and having body and source regions being formed self-
aligned to the gate at their outer perimeter and self-aligned at
the sidewall of the recess at their inner perimeter. Id. The
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
formed self-aligned features in Mihara’s device because it is
conventional in the art to do so as taught by Coe in order to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007