Appeal No. 1999-1666
Application No. 08/847,319
Turning now to the rejection of claim 49, the examiner
asserts at page 4 of the answer that “Zhang (col. 4, lines 52-
61) teaches to use an organic compound of a dopant species,
and Bohling (col. 10, lines 13-38 and col. 19, lines 33-56)
teaches to use organic compounds of dopant species with a
halogen species for diffusion.”
At page 5 of the answer, the examiner derives therefrom
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to use dopant
species as taught by Zhang and Bohling in Kiyota’s process
because the species are well known and conventional dopant
sources during gas phase doping” (emphasis added).
In response, appellant argues at page 8 of the brief the
following three points: (1) that combining Kiyota with Melas
does not produce or render obvious the claimed novel doping
method recited in claim 4; (2) that both Zhang and Bohling
fail to teach the limitation of an organic compound comprising
a halogen species in its molecular structure as required by
claim 49; and (3) that Zhang teaches temperatures no higher
than 550 C. We agree with the examiner that Zhang (col. 4,o
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007