Appeal No. 1998-1069
Application No. 08/259,575
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found
in the 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).
On page 9 the brief, Appellant asserts that the Examiner7
has formulated the rejection by arbitrarily picking and
choosing snippets from each of the five references for
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Appellant
notes that while each of the references includes one or more
elements in common with the claimed invention, each reference
also has elements that are antithetical to the claimed
invention, and are completely incongruent with the claimed
invention and may just as easily be extracted from the
references.
In particular, Appellant notes that Schwabe does not show8
a process for creating source and drain regions having LDD tip
regions extending from main source and drain regions, and
7Section 2
8Brief, page 10, section 4
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007