Appeal No. 2004-0550
Application No. 09/802,201
With regard to the rejection of claims 10-13, appellants
present the same arguments discussed above with respect to Draper
and the combination of Rajkanan, Lee, Wu and Boden (Brief, pages
11-12). Accordingly, we adopt our remarks from above.
With regard to the rejection of claims 14 and 15, appellants
argue that Dennen is directed to transistors, and is “teaching
away” from the claimed invention by teaching towards the
reduction in capacitance in the device (Brief, page 13).
Appellants further argue that Appel is directed to doping the
gate with p-type dopants while the source/drain regions are also
doped p-type, and there is no motivation for combining elements
from different structures to achieve the claimed invention
(Brief, page 14). These arguments are not persuasive for reasons
stated by the examiner (Answer, pages 21-23), namely that Dennen
does teach some capacitance, even if it might be “reduced.”
Therefore, Dennen does not teach away from a capacitor device but
teaches a device with capacitance. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The examiner
also reiterates that Appel was not applied to show the claimed
doping of the polysilicon gate with p-type dopants over n-type
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007