Appeal No. 1998-2483
Application No. 08/289,347
Pramanik et al.(Pramanik), “MeV Implantation for Silicon Device Fabrication,” Solid State
Technology, pp. 211-216, May 1984.
Admitted Prior Art at pages 1-2 of the specification (APA).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pramanik in view of APA. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Odanaka in view of APA.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 38, mailed April 14, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 37, filed January 20, 1998) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that both Pramanik and Odanaka teach CMOS devices rather
than the interlining CCD of the present claims and that the characteristic problems of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007