Appeal No. 2000-0260
Application No. 08/675,865
record, however, it is our opinion that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient reasons or evidence to satisfy such burden.
The genesis of the Examiner’s assertion of the lack of
compliance with the statutory written description requirement was
the amendment to independent claim 1 which now recites that “...
arsenic dopant is doped at a depth in the substrate greater than a
depth of the phosphorus dopant....” Independent claim 12 was also
amended to require that arsenic is implanted to a depth in the
substrate “... not less than a depth” of the phosphorus. In the
Examiner’s view (Answer, page 3) the amended language has no
support in the original disclosure since the original disclosure is
completely silent about the relative substrate depths of the doped
arsenic and phosphorus.
After reviewing Appellants’ originally filed disclosure, as
well as the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. While the Examiner
is correct in the assertion, one with which Appellants agree, that
the originally filed specification has no explicit statements
related to the relative substrate depths of the arsenic and
phosphorus dopants, it is our view that Appellants’ original
disclosure nonetheless provides a clear indication of support for
the language of independent claims 1 and 12. As pointed out by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007