Appeal No. 2000-1927
Application No. 08/990,754
appellants that the references would not have suggested modifying the structure of
Figure 35 by using an n- and n+ structure for the source or drain structure, as shown in
Figure 24. Murakami teaches that the structure of Figure 35 has inferior properties in
comparison to the inventive structure shown in Figure 1. As such, in our opinion the
artisan would not have sought to make modifications to what Murakami teaches to be a
basically defective structure, when Murakami also teaches a different approach to the
problem which results in a more robust solution.
We note a factual question that we cannot resolve on this record. Murakami
defines (e.g., col. 1, ll. 25-31) an LDD structure as consisting of an n- impurity region
and an n+ impurity region. Murakami’s definition appears consistent with that of
appellants. (See Brief, sentence bridging pp. 4 and 5.) Yet, Murakami refers to Figure
35 as an LDD structure (col. 3, ll. 41-45), but shows a source/drain consisting of an n-
(307) and an n (309) region.
The examiner submits reasons (Answer at 9-10) why the actual concentration of
the Figure 35 structure should be considered as having relatively low and relatively high
(n- and n+) impurity concentrations in the source/drain, notwithstanding the relative
concentrations indicated by the drawing. However, the examiner does not provide
evidence for the assertions.1 Appellants, in response, focus on the drawings of
1 Moreover, we observe that Murakami describes Figure 35 as representing a structure described
in a Japanese disclosure. Murakami at col. 3, ll. 17-25. The rejection does not rely on the Japanese
document. We have obtained a full English translation of the Japanese document (Kokai Patent
Application No. 2-133929), dated May 2000. We are placing a copy of the English translation in the record
for the examiner’s review, and a copy of the translation is to mail with this decision.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007