Appeal No. 1998-1069
Application No. 08/259,575
For example, the Examiner states that Hsu has been 21
included in the rejection merely to show that ion kinetic
energies for an LDD tip implantation process would have been
well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and Ichikawa
has been included merely to show that the claimed ion kinetic
energies for forming source and drain junctions would have
been within the ordinary skill of one in the art. However
these references do not disclose that their ion kinetic
energies provide improved results, or any other specific
reason to incorporate such ion energies in other CMOS
fabrication techniques. In addition, Schwabe does not
indicate any reason for one to desire ion kinetic energies
other than those disclosed by Schwabe. Therefore, the Examiner
has selected ion kinetic energies from each of Hsu and
Ichikawa without guidance from teachings or suggestions from
any of the references.
Our reviewing court requires the PTO to make specific
findings on a suggestion to combine prior art references. In
re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19
21Answer, pages 8 and 9
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007