Appeal No. 1997-3728
Application No. 08/323,311
nonconductor. Such extensive doping to achieve the conversion from a semiconductor
to a conductor member is well known in the art and is referred to as degenerative
doping.
U.S. Patent 3,633,078, column 3, lines 55 through 62.
We have identified other patents which suggest that the term “degenerate,” in referring to
semiconductor material, is related to “degenerative” doping. For example, the following section
appears in U.S. Patent 5,338,944 (to Edmond et al.):
As used herein, the term "degenerate" has its ordinary meaning; i.e., a
semiconductor material which has been extremely heavily doped with desirable
impurities to give it a certain type of conductive character; i.e., a character which is
more in the nature of a conductor than a semiconductor.
U.S. Patent 5,338,944, column 4, lines 13 through 18.
Thus, there is extrinsic evidence to support appellants’ view that the Claim 9 limitation of
“degeneratively doping these islands, thereby to render the islands conductive” would have been
understood by the artisan to mean extensive or heavy doping that was beyond the norm. Since the
references upon which the rejection is based do not describe “degenerative” doping, and the examiner
has not otherwise persuasively explained how the recitations of Claim 9 may be disclosed or suggested
by the references, we do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of Claim 9.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 6-8 is affirmed.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007