Appeal No. 1999-0887
Application No. 08/702,074
and Bemski, we do not sustain this rejection as well. As the
basis for this rejection, the Examiner proposes to add
Bemski’s disclosure of cobalt or nickel doped silicon, and its
described advantages in increasing minority carrier lifetime,
to the teachings of Temple. In the Examiner’s view, “[i]t
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to use cobalt or nickel as an
acceptor dopant as taught by Bemski in the device of Temple to
improve the minority carrier lifetime.” (Final Office action,
page 5).
In response, Appellants’ arguments mirror those made
supra with respect to the Moore reference, arguments with
which we agree for essentially the same reasons as discussed
previously. The disclosure of Bemski is directed to the heat
treatment of a single crystal silicon body in the presence of
nickel or cobalt to improve minority carrier lifetime. We
find nothing in the disclosure of Bemski, however, which would
indicate any practical application of the disclosure to
semiconductor component devices or components, let alone to
the specific claimed junction termination region of such
devices. As particularly set forth at column 7, lines 32-34
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007