Appeal No. 2000-0260
Application No. 08/675,865
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, nor of claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 17 dependent
thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 9, and 13-15 based on Lee alone, we do
not sustain this rejection as well. As with the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection discussed supra, the Examiner has improperly relied on
the rationale expressed in the rejection under the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as the basis for the obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For all of the reasons previously discussed,
however, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since Lee lacks any teaching or suggestion of
formulating a field effect transistor region in which arsenic is
doped at substrate depth greater than phosphorus (appealed
independent claim 1), or one in which arsenic is doped at a depth
not less than phosphorus (independent claim 12).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007