Appeal No. 1998-2483
Application No. 08/289,347
examiner without any statement of support in the prior art references or any support in the
brief statements in appellant’s specification.
Appellant argues that the admitted prior art does not show the peak concentration
of impurities at a deep position from the substrate surface. (See brief at page 9.) We
agree with appellant. Appellant argues that the admitted prior art Figure 3 does not show
that the impurity concentration of the prior art device which has the concentration on the
surface cannot be lowered as compared with the peak concentration of the well.
Therefore, it would not be inherent that the residual image blooming of the image sensor is
reduced as the examiner contends. (See brief at page 10 and 11.) We agree with
appellant.
When relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in
fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly
inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See
Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Patent App. & Int. 1990)(discussing
inherency as it relates to a rejection based upon anticipation). Here, we find that the
examiner has not provided any basis for the speculative conclusion that the residual image
blooming of the image sensor would be reduced.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007