Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
For the above reasons, Kalnitsky would have rendered the
integrated circuit claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.5
The appellants argue that their fabrication procedure
produces a dose-soft (reduced radiation resistance) transistor,
whereas Kalnitsky produces a dose-hard (enhanced radiation
resistance) transistor (brief, page 7). This argument is not
well taken because the appellants’ claim 1 does not require that
the first device is dose soft. What the claim requires is that
the first device is more susceptible than the second device to
ionizing radiation. This claim requirement can be met by a
standard first device and a dose-hard second device such as
Kalnitsky’s silicon ion-implanted transistor.
The appellants argue (reply brief, page 4) that
in Kalnitsky, the hot lead of a radiation-hard
transistor and the hot lead of a radiation-soft
transistor cannot be connected to one another. If they
were connected, then the sensor could not sense any
difference between the two types of transistors. Note
Kalnitsky’s language concerning “a differential
signal.” Essentially, Kalnitsky is disclosing
attaching the two different transistors to a
differential amplifier. Clearly, two transistors that
are connected to a differential amplifier are not
electrically connected to one another.
5 We consider the appellants’ admitted prior art to be
cumulative.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007