Appeal No. 1999-1666
Application No. 08/847,319
doping process because the dopant species are conventional
dopant sources during gas phase doping.
The appellant responds to the rejection of page 6 of the
brief by indicating that the examiner’s proposed combination
of teachings is improper. In support thereof, the appellant
notes that Melas teaches a chemical vapor deposition method
which is not a direct doping method as required by the claims.
The examiner did not present any specific arguments addressing
the above-noted argument by the appellant. The appellant
followed-up with a reply brief reiterating the objection to
the examiner’s combination of prior art teachings.
Based on the record before us, we are in general
agreement with the appellant that the collective evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 4, 47, 48,
50-52 and 54. Although Melas (col. 1, lines 14-25) does teach
doping a semiconductor wafer and the use of an organic
compound of a dopant species containing (CH ) B and (C H ) B,3 3 2 5 3
Melas teaches in column 6, lines 1-5 that these materials are
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007