Appeal No. 94-0809
Application 07/707,365
para.). Some confusion appears to stem from appellants’ apparent
acknowledgment thereafter that Nishizaka does make polysilicon
plugs and may implant impurities into said plugs at least within
the meaning of the terms in their claims. Appellants state,
“[t]he polysilicon plugs 10 (i.e., the buried polycrystalline
silicon layer) of Nishizaka are not part of or over the
source/drain regions of Nishizaka” (RB., p. 1, third para.;
emphasis added). Had appellants emphasized comparative function
rather than comparative “structure,” this appeal might not have
been necessary.
That the examiner’s ultimate decision on the patentability
of the claimed subject matter is erroneous in this case is not
readily apparent from the respective analyses of Nishizaka’s
disclosure in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) and Appellants’ Brief
on Appeal (Br.). However, because we find that the impurities
with which Nishizaka’s buried polycrystalline silicon layer 10
may be doped would not “diffuse into the substrate to form
source/drain regions of a field effect transistor” (emphasis
added), we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s holding of
unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings
of Nishizaka, Godejahn, and O’Mara.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007