Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
those regions. Clearly, there is no physically observable
difference between structures with differing doping
concentrations. Accordingly, contrary to appellant’s
contention, the concentration of dopants in a region is not a
structure. Therefore, we do not understand how a claimed
relationship of the doping concentrations and junction depths
is a structural limitation.
Although appellant argues that “the resultant structure
is what is important in the structure claim, not the method of
forming that structure” (page 13 of the principal brief), and
we agree, the burden is upon appellant to come forward with
evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the
claimed structure and the prior art structure. See In re
Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 293 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Thus, the “independent” limitations of claim 1 do not
distinguish the instant claimed invention from the structure
shown by the applied references. We continue in our analysis.
Toyoshima clearly shows a source region 30 formed in the
substrate and a channel region separates the source and drain
regions. An insulating layer, gate oxide film 23, is formed
over the channel region and over the second lightly doped
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007