Appeal No. 2004-0550
Application No. 09/802,201
source/drain regions but was applied for the teaching of doping a
polysilicon gate over a p-type silicon region with n-type dopants
(Answer, page 22). The examiner also notes that the motivation
to combine has been previously stated and appellants have not
contested any specific motivation (Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 22-23).
With regard to the rejections of claims 16-19 and claim 20,
appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the
references as suggested by the examiner, and that it is not
obvious to combine a p-type gate with a dissimilar n-type
source/drain region given that the references disclose the use of
a specific gate with a similarly typed source and drain (Brief,
pages 15-17). These arguments are not well taken for reasons
noted above, as the examiner has specifically identified
motivations to combine the references (e.g., see the Answer, page
5), as well as shown that Lee teaches use of a p+ polysilicon
gate with n-type source/drain regions.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007