Appeal No. 1998-1577
Application No. 08/593,766
teaching of the claimed single pulse? In “Example
2”, lines 58-61 of Ishida et al discuss varying the
“number of pulses”, “pulse repetition rate”, and
“laser energy fluence” and states that “Sample H6
received 100 pulses . . . ”. That certainly doesn’t
teach a single pulse. Col. 4, lines 22-28 of Ishida
et al states “Control over dose is achieved by
varying the number of laser pulses”. Does that
teach or suggest a single laser pulse? The Examiner
has referred to Claim 3 of Ishida et al as providing
a teaching, but Claim 3 involves “applying a
silicide layer” which relates to the GILD doping
process. [Emphasis original.]
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Ishida does in fact
teach varying the number of laser pulses, but never teaches
the use of a single pulse of laser energy as specifically
required by the claims on appeal. Inasmuch as every
embodiment in Ishida requires that the doping process begin
with a plurality of laser energy pulses (e.g., column 3, lines
42 through 51), and would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the doping process should be
initiated by a single laser energy pulse, the obviousness
rejection is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007