Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
7, 8, 11, 24, 25, and 28 as obvious over the admitted prior
art and Sagara.
We now separately address claim 5. Appellants argue that
the Examiner has failed to point to any portion of the cited
prior art which correlates with the language of claim 5.
Brief, page 34.
Claim 5 recites:
5. A method according to claim 4, wherein step (d) comprises
selectively masking said first surface of said substrate so as
to provide a third impurity introduction aperture overlying
said second well region, introducing impurities of said first
conductivity type at a second dosage energy to said third
depth in said second well region, and introducing impurities
of said first conductivity type at a third dosage energy to a
fourth depth less than said third depth in said second well
region.
We note that neither the admitted prior art, Tanabe nor
Sagara teaches the limitations of claim 5. Specifically, as
outlined on page 33 of the Brief, there exists no teaching for
1) "introducing impurities of a first conductivity type at a
second dosage energy to a third depth in the second well, and
(2) introducing impurities of the first conductivity type of
the third dosage energy to a fourth depth less than the third
depth in the second well region." Moreover, we also find no
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007