Appeal No. 1998-2925
Application 08/532,861
prima facie case of obviousness.
Lin, however, discloses implantation of In at a depth
which is greater than that at which boron (a p-type dopant) is
implanted (page 1791, lower portions of figure 1 (a) and (d)).
Appellants argue that the depths are approximately the same
(reply brief, page 7), but the lower portions of figure 1 (a)
and (d) show an In implantation depth greater than the boron
implantation depth, which is all that appellants’ claim 11
requires in this respect. Use of In/B dual implantation in
the methods of Yoshizumi and Mitsui, including implantation
using the disclosed In implantation depth greater than the B
implantation depth, would have been fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art by Lin, to obtain the above-
discussed benefits disclosed by Lin of his dual implantation.
Appellants argue that Lin discloses only implants for
shallow junctions such as source/drain regions, not gates, and
that an implant that is suitable for a source/drain region is
not necessarily suitable as a gate implant (reply brief, page
5). This argument is not well taken because, first, it is an
unsupported argument by appellants’ counsel, and such argument
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007