Appeal No. 2000-0260
Application No. 08/675,865
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 12, a review of the
Examiner’s stated position on the issue of anticipation (Answer,
page 8) indicates an inexplicable reliance on the Exxaminer’s
position on the issue of the adequacy of the disclosure discussed
supra. It is self evident that the standards for establishing a
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 are
completely different from those required for supporting a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In this regard, the Examiner has never
attempted to make a showing of how all of the limitations in
independent claims 1 and 12 are present in the disclosure of Lee.
Further, our review of the disclosure of Lee makes it apparent
that any attempt to read the limitations of appealed claims 1 and
12 on the Lee reference must fail. As set forth in Lee (Figure 1
and the accompanying description at column 4, lines 8-16), the
arsenic ions 20 which form the diffusion barrier region 22 are
implanted at a shallower depth than the region 18 containing the
phosphorus, the exact opposite of what is being claimed in appealed
independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Lee, we do not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007