Appeal No. 2000-0733
Application No. 08/310,041
examiner’s reasonable showing of obviousness of the claimed subject matter based on
inherency once the artisan is led, from Aronowitz, to include gallium, indium or
aluminum as a dopant along with the boron of APA.
Appellants may not argue references individually when the rejection is based on
a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981).
Appellants argue that Aronowitz increases electrical activity as a result of an
increased concentration of P-type dopant at the upper surface of the P-type region, the
exact opposite result that is required, and desired, to solve the problem of parasitic
bipolar transistors. Therefore, conclude appellants, Aronowitz “would discourage use of
that method to solve the problem of parasitic bipolar transistors” [principal brief-page
10].
We disagree. Albeit for different reasons, Aronowitz clearly would have
suggested the addition of either gallium, indium or aluminum dopants to the boron of
APA. The examiner is alleging that since this is exactly what appellants are doing, then
the same result will occur. Aronowitz clearly would not discourage the use of these
other dopants, and, in fact, encourages their use. While their use may be encouraged
for a purpose other than that indicated by appellants, the examiner has made a
reasonable case that such use, being the same as appellants’, would achieve,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007