Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
Upon our reading of claim 4, we find that the claim
requires that a lightly doped drain region be formed by
implantation through the metal oxide layer. We fail to find
that the Examiner has come to grips with this limitation and
upon our review of the references we fail to find that either
reference teaches this limitation. Therefore we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
In regard to the rejection of claims 7, 10, 11, 13, 15
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang
in view of Mizuno and the rejection of claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang in view of
Mizuno and Hunter, Appellants argue on pages 8 through 11 the
Examiner has failed to show any motivation or incentive for
combining the teachings of these references. Appellants argue
that Mizuno provides no incentive for forming a metal oxide
layer in direct contact with the gate and a portion of the
substrate. Appellants further argue that Hunter does not
disclose any benefits particularly associated with forming the
silicone oxide layer spacer in direct contact with the gate or
a portion of the substrate.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007