Appeal No. 1996-2246
Application No. 08/052,910
the subsequent etching of undoped regions of the silicon
layer. To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to
Komatsu for a teaching of forming a polysilicon electrode by
selectively doping impurities into an electrode region of a
polysilicon layer followed by the etching of the undoped
regions. In the Examiner’s line of reasoning, the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of
Ogura by providing for the selective doping of the polysilicon
layer and subsequent etching of the undoped regions to obtain
a pattern with high precision. The Ueno and Henry references
are additionally added to the Examiner’s proposed combination
as providing a teaching of the use of amorphous silicon and
potassium hydroxide etching, respectively.
In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner,
therefore, has pointed out the teachings of Ogura, Komatsu,
Ueno, and Henry, has reasonably indicated the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention,
and has provided reasons as to how and why the prior art
references would have been modified and/or combined to arrive
at the claimed invention (Answer, pages 3-6). In our view,
the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007