Appeal No. 2000-0732
Application No. 08/741,799
section 102 rejection. In re Hughes, 345 F.2d 184, 145 USPQ
467 (CCPA 1965).
We also note appellants’ argument regarding the claimed
recitation of the implantation “for retarding the upward
diffusion of said first dopant.” We agree with appellants
that Kato teaches that a “redistribution” in the embedded
layer 11 can be prevented [see column 6, lines 10-11] and says
nothing about retarding “upward diffusion” of the dopant. It
is the examiner’s position that the effect of unwanted
redistribution would “include upward diffusion” [see page 6 of
the answer] but the examiner points to nothing which would
support this position. Now, it may be that if all the claimed
method steps were taught by Kato, an inherency argument would
lie since a structure achieved by employing the same process
as that claimed would appear to “inherently” exhibit the same
properties, viz., retarding the upward diffusion of the first
dopant. In any event, no inherency argument has been made by
the examiner and it is our view that Kato does not disclose
the same method set forth in instant claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
1, and of claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 14-16 dependent
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007