Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SHS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at
1548, 220 USPQ at 309.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner on
page 11 of the Brief states that the limitation of implanting
through the metal oxide layer is not recited in the rejected
claims. Examiner argues that the Hunter reference is relied
on only to show forming a lightly doped region by implanting
after a spacer has been formed. This is regardless of the
particular material, since the spacer is simply being used for
its masking capabilities and not for more specific material
properties.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007