Appeal No. 1997-0515
Application 08/350,504
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-313.
Upon our review of the references relied upon by
the Examiner, we fail to find any suggestion or reason to form
the Nakada lightly doped epitaxial layer 3 and the Shibata
sidewalls 13 in the Kotani structure. We note that Kotani
actually teaches a distinct substrate 10 which has a doping
level lower than the epitaxial layer 20. Furthermore, we note
that Appellant claims a substrate having a first doping level
in an
epitaxial silicon region overlying the doped substrate region
having a second doping level that is less than the first
doping level. We fail to find that Nakada or Shibata would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007