Appeal No. 96-3475
Application 08/245,775
presented no claim on appeal which is directed to the low level doping of II/VI materials
14 3
providing a dopant concentration in the range of 10 atoms per cm . In this regard, appealed
19 -3 14
claims 6, 12, and 13 all recite concentration ranges from “about 1 x 10 cm to about 1 x 10
-3
cm “ in the Group II/Group VI semiconductor material.
Further, although a person of ordinary skill in the art might understand that
triisopropylindium is more sterically demanding than trimethylindium in a doping process as
claimed (Brief, page 8), appellants have not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have expected at least acceptable doping within the broad dopant concentration range
claimed.
Appellants have asked for separate consideration of appealed process claims 7-11. See
the brief at page 5. These claims define the process more specifically and indicate that “minimal
indium memory doping occurs”. Judging from the evidence before us, appellants may have been
the first to recognize that the use of triisopropylindium in a doping process as claimed provides a
benefit in that the memory effect is reduced. However, it is a well settled principle of law that the
motivation in the prior art to combine the teachings of the prior art does not have to be identical
to that of an applicant to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 409 (1991). To
the extent that the attainment of “minimal indium memory doping” is said to establish results
which would not have been expected by person of ordinary skill in the art, we point out that there
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007