Appeal No. 2004-0550
Application No. 09/802,201
taken since the examiner has not proposed a combination of the
capacitor of Rajkanan and the transistor of Lee. The examiner’s
rejection relies on the combination of a p+ type polysilicon gate
used for a MOS capacitor in Lee with an unspecified polysilicon
gate of the MOS capacitor in Rajkanan (Answer, page 15). See
Lee, col. 2, ll. 32-40. It is noted that appellants’ previous
arguments recognized that “Lee discloses the use of P+polysilicon
gate MOS capacitors ... (see e.g., col. 2, lines 35-41).” Brief,
page 6.
We note that appellants stated that the claims stand or fall
together with claim 1 as representative of all the claims on
appeal (Brief, page 5). However, appellants have presented
arguments concerning the rejections of other claims in view of
Rajkanan, Lee and other secondary references (Brief, pages 8-17).
Therefore, to the extent other claims have been argued, we
address these arguments below.
Appellants argue that the arsenic dosage levels taught by Wu
are different than those recited in claim 8 on appeal (Brief,
page 9). Appellants further argue that the teachings of Wu are
in the context of transistors, not capacitors as now claimed
(id.).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007