Appeal No. 2000-0733
Application No. 08/310,041
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Aronowitz 4,746,964 May 24, 1988
Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art [APA] in the specification.
Claims 32-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA in
view of Aronowitz.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note a bit of awkwardness in claims 37, 38 and 39. Each claim
calls for selecting “one” of an indium, aluminum and gallium dopant. Yet, the claims
recite that the first impurity concentration decreases to a lower second impurity
concentration in the channel region by depletion of the P-type dopants into the gate
oxide layer “due to the small segregation coefficient of the indium and aluminum and to
the higher diffusion rate of the gallium” [emphasis added]. Since only one of the
dopants is selected, it would appear more accurate to recite “due to the small
segregation coefficient of the indium and aluminum or to the higher diffusion rate of the
gallium.” In any event, we leave it to appellants and the examiner to make any
corrections deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007