Appeal No. 2003-1365
Application No. 09/376,659
Examiner has pointed to no teachings in the prior art, nor do we
find any, that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use the HTO and nitride side wall layers of Gardner
‘298 and Kokubu in the same manner the photoresist masks of
Komori are used to limit the implanting of dopants to the exposed
source and drain regions. As the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case obviousness, we cannot sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-15 over Komori,
Gardner ‘298 and Kokubu.
We note that the Examiner, in combination with Komori,
Gardner ‘298 and Kokubu, further relies on Gardner ‘518 to reject
claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 and on Gardner ‘531 to reject claims 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Gardner ‘518 merely describes
asymmetrical side walls (Figures 1H and 1I and Col. 5, lines 11-
19) while Gardner ‘531 suggests SiON as a dielectric material to
be used as the side wall (Col. 7, lines 63-67). By relying on
these references, the Examiner has not provided any additional
evidence to overcome the deficiencies of Komori, Gardner ‘298 and
Kokubu as discussed above with respect to claims 1-5 and 10-15,
and therefore, has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 over Komori, Gardner ‘298 and
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007