Appeal No. 2000-0733
Application No. 08/310,041
Aronowitz and the instant invention, Aronowitz does provide a reason for the artisan to
employ any one of these dopants with the boron of APA. Once any one of these
dopants is introduced in APA, since the instant claimed invention achieves a channel
region formed with a depleted concentration of P-type dopant, so, too, must APA, as
modified by Aronowitz. The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable to us and we hold
that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established regarding claims 32, 37
and 39.
Appellants argue that it is not “inherent” in Aronowitz to achieve a channel region
formed with a depleted concentration of P-type dopant and that Aronowitz “teaches
away” from the instant claimed invention because Aronowitz does not teach a gate
oxide or a channel region. More specifically, appellants argue that without an adjacent
gate oxide, the indium and aluminum cannot segregate into the gate oxide in Aronowitz,
the gallium cannot diffuse into the gate oxide, and, accordingly, the channel region with
a depleted concentration of P-type dopant cannot be formed.
Appellants’ argument would be persuasive if Aronowitz was the sole reference
upon which the examiner relies. However, the rejection is based on two references,
with APA being alleged by the examiner to show the channel and gate oxide absent
from Aronowitz. Appellants have not set forth any convincing rationale to rebut the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007