Appeal No. 2002-1411
Application No. 09/144,535
simplify processing steps. See id. pages 7-8 and 14-15.
Appellant concedes that Coe teaches self-aligned features,
but notes that Coe fails to teach a Schottky contact disposed at
the bottom of the recess as required by the claims. Appeal
brief, page 17. Coe fails to show or suggest an opening with a
self-aligned recess to the opening extending to a semiconductor
substrate to provide a Schottky contact. Id., page 18. As
correctly pointed out by the examiner, appellant has failed to
establish that one of ordinary skill in the art in considering
the Mihara device which includes a Schottky diode would have been
motivated to have employed the method of Coe which teaches self-
aligned features since Coe fails to disclose how to form a self-
aligned recess extending to the semiconductor substrate to
provide a Schottky contact. Id., page 18.
We are also unpersuaded by the examiner’s argument that
“although Mihara does not teach forming the source and body
regions in a self-aligned manner, figure 5 of Mihara is identical
to the claimed structure, because the claimed final structure, as
depicted in figure 9, does not include self-aligned source and
body regions.” Examiner’s answer, page 14. The claims are not,
as suggested by the examiner, limited to the embodiment shown in
figure 9 of the specification. See In re Cruciferous Sprout
Litigation v. Sunrise Farms, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007