Appeal No. 1998-2044
Application No. 08/719,773
argued that the impurity region 27 merely changes the electric
field along the surface channel region between the source and
drain regions, but that the impurity region does not create a
buried channel region [reply brief]. The examiner has ignored
this argument, and consequently, we have no reasoning of
record to rebut this argument. On this record, we agree with
appellants that Kagami does not disclose a buried channel
region. We also agree with appellants’ argument that there is
no motivation to combine the teachings of Kagami with Yazawa.
Yazawa seeks to eliminate a surface channel region whereas
Kagami seeks to create a surface channel region. These two
references are at cross purposes with each other, and the only
motivation to combine their teachings comes from an improper
attempt to recreate the claimed invention in hindsight. Even
if the teachings of Kagami and Yazawa could be combined, the
examiner has not identified how such a combination obviously
results in the claimed invention.
Since these arguments of appellants apply to each of
independent claims 10 and 17, we do not sustain the rejection
of any of claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as proposed by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007