Appeal No. 1996-1616
Application No. 08/158,673
the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention would make the combination." In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 5.
For claim 8, the examiner combines Yoshida with Blanchard
and Luth. As pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 4)
"Yoshida has no suggestion of diodes and thus [no] suggestion
of the
requirement [of] a common doping profile of claim 8." The
examiner contends (Answer, page 5) that "the Yoshida reference
was not used to show the doping profile, but was used to show
the claimed gate structure." The examiner continues (Answer,
page 6) that "[i]t is also clear from the Blanchard reference
both regions 63d and 63 have a P concentration and not just+
- ++
one region having a P or a P (which is a common notation to
show different concentration levels of semiconductor regions)
relative to the other region." However, since the device of
Blanchard must be modified to incorporate the gate structure
of Yoshida, the entire transistor structure gets changed.
Thus, even if Blanchard has common doping profiles before the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007