Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
Furuhata, to connect to other devices as taught by Furuhata”
(page 12 of the principal answer).
While the examiner appears to have made a prima facie of
obviousness, appellant argues only (principal brief-page 22)
that Lehrer “does not teach or suggest elevated source/drain
regions.” This argument is unpersuasive since it is not
Lehrer, but, rather Furuhata which the examiner relies on for
the teaching of elevated source/drain regions. Accordingly,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 40 and 41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We also will sustain the rejections of claims
2, 4, 6 through 8, 30 through 36, 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 since, not being separately argued as to their merits,
these claims fall with the claims from which they depend.
We will, however, not sustain the rejection of claim 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim requires that the elevated
source/drain regions “comprise a single crystal
semiconductor.” The examiner contends that Nishizawa teaches
that source and drain regions 14 and 15 comprise a “single
crystal semiconductor” and that it would have been obvious to
use a heavily doped single crystal semiconductor to elevate
source and drain regions instead of the silicide of Jain “in
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007