Appeal No. 1998-1615
Application 08/548,928
structure" (Brief, pp. 8-9). However, the examiner urges that (Answer, p. 5):
Sasaki shows doped regions having a particular resistivity and annealing the device to
vary the resistivity. Sasaki uses laser energy, heating and annealing to try to attain the
optimal resistivity desired for the intended process; hence, a testing structure has been
disclosed.
The examiner's position is not persuasive. To the extent that the semiconductor device of
Sasaki includes doped regions having varying degrees of resistivity, the examiner has failed to establish
that the device of Sasaki is a "silicon doping test structure" as claimed. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability).
Additionally, each of claims 1, 8 and 17 requires a silicon doping test structure comprising "at
least one contact." The examiner has failed to address this limitation. On the other hand, appellant
appears to interpret Sasaki as suggesting that at least gate electrode 14 of Figure 5 is "a contact" and
aluminum layers 18a, 18b and 18c constitute the "overlayer of laser light reflective material" as claimed.
See Brief, p. 9; compare Answer, p. 5, lines 10-18.
Interpreting Sasaki as proposed by appellant, the teachings of Sasaki fail to suggest the
following steps (emphasis added):
(a) "providing a patterned overlayer of laser light reflective material having holes in
alignment with said at least one contact and with regions of the silicon to be doped" (claim 1);
(b) "patterning the layer of laser light reflective material to form openings in at least the
underlying silicon regions to be doped" (claim 8); and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007