Appeal No. 2000-0732
Application No. 08/741,799
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) over Kato. Since neither
Wolf, Kuroi nor Aronowitz provides for the deficiencies of
Kato, noted supra, and we find no reason to hold the
implantation of layer 11 in Kato through the epitaxial layer
13 to have been obvious, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 7, 9, 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Independent claims 19 and 44 are similar to claim 1
except that they specifically recite the heavily-doped layer
as being a P+ layer including boron and that the material
implanted is nitrogen. Additionally, claim 44 requires two
implantations and a final annealing step. However, neither
independent claim 19 nor independent claim 44 includes the
claim 1 limitation of implanting “through a top portion of the
semiconductor body.”
Accordingly, appellants’ arguments directed to implanting
“through a top portion of the semiconductor body” has no
relevance to independent claims 19 and 44.
Further, appellants offer no argument regarding the P+
nature of the dopant, that the layer includes boron or that
8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007