Appeal No. 1998-1069
Application No. 08/259,575
(Fed. Cir. 1999). In this regard, we note that the Examiner
has made, inter alia, the following findings directly related
to claim limitations which require more than one reference to
obviate(emphasis added):
1) Forming the NMOS device within a p-type well,
instead of a p-type substrate would have been well
known in the art, as it is depicted in figure 7 of
Schwabe;
2) The use of implant specifications would have
been well known to one in the art;
3) In view of Ichikawa's teaching, performing
separate implants at 40-[1]80 [sic] keV at a dose in
the range of 10 - 10 atoms/cm would have been well15 16 2
known to one in the art, and as a result the claim
implantation energies are prima facie obvious based
on process optimization as determined through
routine experimentation;
4)The claimed kinetic energy is deemed to be prima
facie obvious based on process optimization as
determined through routine experimentation by one of
ordinary skill in the art;
5) The combination of Bergonzoni and Hsu, by
modifying the method of Schwabe, would have
suggested that the formation of a CMOs device having
an LDD-type NMOS transistor in a p-well and an LDD-
type PMOS transistor in an n-well would have been
within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007