Appeal No. 2000-0732
Application No. 08/741,799
the material implanted is nitrogen. Accordingly, we accept
the examiner’s rationale with regard to these claim
limitations.
At page 6 of the principal brief, appellants argue that
Kato and the claimed invention are distinguished by “comparing
Kato’s depth profiles of Figures 9 and 11 (both of which
indicate surface deposition of the element of high
electronegativity) with the appellants’ disclosed barrier
layer depth profiles in, for example, Figure 7.” We do not
find this argument to be persuasive since appellants never
state what, exactly, that distinction is after inviting us to
compare Figures 9 and 11 of Kato with Figure 7 of the instant
application.
Thus, we are left with the argument that Kato does not
teach or suggest a method that retards the upward diffusion of
dopants. The examiner contends that Kato’s reduction of
redistribution encompasses upward diffusion but, as we said
supra, the examiner has offered no evidence to support this
allegation. Again, we will not conjecture as to whether an
“inherency” argument could have been made in this regard since
the examiner has not made it.
9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007