Appeal No. 1998-2925
Application 08/532,861
(1968); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364
(CCPA 1962).
The examiner argues that appellants’ claim 1 does not
exclude a dual implant (answer, pages 9-10). A dual implant,
however, is excluded by “implanting only indium ions”.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the method recited in claim 1. We therefore
reverse the rejections of this claim and claims 2-7 which
depend therefrom.
As for claim 11, the examiner argues that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain an
implantation depth of indium greater than that of a p-type
dopant by optimization (answer, pages 6 and 8). The examiner,
however, provides no explanation as to why optimization
necessarily would produce these relative depths or why the
applied references would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to optimize in such a way that these relative depths are
obtained. Again, the examiner relies upon mere speculation,
and such speculation is not sufficient for establishing a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007