Appeal No. 2001-1419
Application No. 09/199,960
disclosed by Chatterjee with the silicided, elevated source/drain
regions taught by Rodder et al. and Wolf, because both Wolf and
Rodder et al. teach the benefits of elevated source/drain
regions.” (Final Office action, page 2).
With respect to representative independent claim 9, after
reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that such
analysis points out the teachings of the Chatterjee, Rodder, and
Wolf references, reasonably indicates the perceived differences
between this prior art and the claimed invention, and provides
reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would have been
modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed invention. In
our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable
that we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied the burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief have not been considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
In response, Appellants offer several arguments in support
of their contention that the Examiner has failed to establish a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007