Appeal No. 96-01612
Application 08/006,152
shallow junction.” See Answer at page 5. The examiner relies on
Wolf to show “the equivalence among dopants . . . .” See Answer
at page 6.
For the reasons well articulated by appellants in the
“argument” section of their Brief at pages 13 through 24, we
cannot subscribe to the examiner’s reasoning. Suffice to say
that the examiner has not established that the prior art as a
whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a
combination of exposing an active face on semiconductor regions
of a substrate, which are spaced from each other by a gate
electrode, by a reduction reaction and then forming an impurity
adsorption layer substantially only on the active face using a
chemical vapor deposition technique. For example, the examiner’s
position is contrary to the teaching of Tsunashima which directs
away from forming an impurity adsorption layer substantially only
on the active face. See Brief at page 13 in conjunction with
Tsunashima at column 4, lines 2-4. The examiner has not supplied
any evidence that the semiconductor device of the type described
in Tsunashima can be made by forming an impurity adsorption layer
substantially only on the active face after the active face is
exposed by a reduction reaction.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007