Appeal No. 2000-0733
Application No. 08/310,041
any patentably distinguishing powers. The recitation of MCTs in the preamble of claim
32 is nothing more than a suggestion of intended use for the claimed method steps and
does not provide any patentable distinction.
With regard to the other claims, as well as claims 32 and 38, the examiner’s
rejection relies on APA teaching of a body region extension formed with a lower dopant
density and on Aronowitz’s teaching that the depth of doping by boron may be
controlled in a P-type body region by also doping with indium, aluminum, or gallium.
Aronowitz suggests that because boron is attracted to gallium, aluminum and
indium, this attraction property may be used to control the diffusion depth of boron,
resulting in regions exhibiting electrical activity that is greater than the simple additive
behavior of boron and one of the other dopants acting alone.
APA discloses using only boron as a P-type dopant but does show forming a P-
type body region having a channel region adjacent a gate oxide.
Thus, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to modify APA
by employing either gallium, indium or aluminum as a dopant in addition to the boron of
APA for the purpose of enhancing electrical activity, the channel region being formed
with a depleted concentration of P-type dopant happening inherently. That is, even
though the motivation for including gallium, indium or aluminum may differ between
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007