Appeal No. 2000-0733
Application No. 08/310,041
Claims 33, 35 and 36 fall with independent claim 32 since appellants do not
argue these claims separately. Appellants do, however, present a separate argument
for claim 34. That is, appellants argue that this claim distinguishes over Aronowitz
because claim 34 recites that the P-type regions are formed by first doping the region
with boron and thereafter doping with gallium, whereas Aronowitz requires first
implanting a shallow layer of gallium and then implanting boron into the region.
Appellants urge that this different sequence of doping results in appellants’ decreased
concentration of P-type dopant under the gate oxide in the claimed invention as
opposed to Aronowitz’s increased concentrations of P-type dopant at the upper portion
of the P-type region.
The examiner’s response to appellants’ argument regarding the sequence of
doping in claim 34 is to cite column 3, lines 60-65, of Aronowitz [Answer-bottom of page
5]. We have reviewed this cited portion of Aronowitz and, while Aronowitz indicates
that a silicon substrate may be implanted with boron ions, as in Example 1, and gallium
ions, as in Example 2, there is no indication therein of any particular order in which
these ions must be implanted. The fact that boron ions are mentioned prior to the
mention of gallium ions, at line 63 of column 3, does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion
that the boron ions must be implanted prior to the gallium ions, as recited in instant
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007