Appeal No. 1998-2925
Application 08/532,861
disclose whether the In functioned effectively when it was
investigated.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Lin’s In or
dual In/B or In/BF for the boron of Yoshizumi or Mitsui
2
because of the benefits disclosed by Lin such as low leakage
current densities, good ideality factors, shallow junctions
and low sheet resistances (answer, pages 5-8). These
benefits, however, are disclosed as being obtained by use of
dual implants, not single element implants (abstract).
The examiner argues that Lin teaches that a single
implant is effective (answer, page 9). The single implant
element, however, is Ga, not In (page 1791 and page 1792,
table I). The examiner argues that data for Ga and In are
comparable (answer, page 10). Even though appellants
challenge this argument (reply brief, page 3), the examiner
provides no supporting evidence. The examiner’s mere
speculation is not sufficient for establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007