Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
order to allow the elevated source and drain to be formed by
etching the substrate material, as taught by Nishizawa” (pages
11-12 of the principal answer).
We disagree. First, it is not clear to us that Nishizawa
even discloses a “single crystal semiconductor.” We do not
find such recitation in the disclosure of Nishizawa and, yet,
appellant never specifically denies that Nishizawa discloses a
single crystal semiconductor. Appellant simply says, at page
21 of the principal brief, that Nishizawa “simply does not
teach or suggest a single crystal semiconductor elevated
source or drain region formed over a heavily doped source or
drain region.” But, even assuming, arguendo, that a single
crystal semiconductor is taught, we find no convincing
rationale by the examiner as to why the skilled artisan would
have sought to replace the silicide of Jain with a single
crystal semiconductor. What advantage is to be gained? We
find no suggestion of this in the applied references and the
examiner has not convinced us otherwise.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 8
and 30 through 43 under either the first or second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 nor have we sustained the rejection of
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007