Appeal No. 1997-3916
Application No. 08/429,650
electrode. We therefore find that the term “aligned” in claim 25 does particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellants regard as their invention. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
25-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, is reversed.
We now turn to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Kubo in
view of Chen.
We find that the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness in this
rejection. It is the burden of the examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217
USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The sole issue presented to us is whether Kubo or Chen teach a buried anti-punchthrough implant
channel or region that is narrower than the gate electrode. The examiner states (final rejection, page 4)
that Kubo shows a buried layer (1C) which forms a buried anti-punchthrough implant channel which is
narrower than the gate electrode. The examiner's position (answer page 5, is that:
the Kubo reference does indeed show in figs. (1,10) that a punch rough [sic:
punchthrough] region can be formed narrower than the gate electrode and shows in other
figures that the size of the punch through regions can vary in size see figs. 93-9), thus one
of ordinary skill in the art realizes from the figures alone that the size of the punch through
region can indeed vary in size.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007