Appeal No. 1999-1666
Application No. 08/847,319
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4,
47, 48, 50-52 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Likewise, it
follows that we also will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We first consider the rejection of claims 4, 47, 48,
50-52 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The examiner (Answer,
page 4) basically relies on Kiyota for teaching all of the
features of independent claim 4 except for the use of an
organic compound of a dopant species. The examiner points to
Melas for its teaching of using an organic compound of a
dopant species for doping a semiconductor wafer. From there,
the examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to use a dopant species as taught by Melas in Kiyota’s direct
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007