Appeal No. 2004-1853 Page 4
Application No. 09/983,625
In this regard, we note that appellants’ specification and
drawings draw a distinction between “source/drain regions 40, 42"
(specification, page 6, lines 5-7 and “lightly doped (LDD)
source/drain extensions 30, 32" (specification, page 5, lines 22-
23). See, e.g., appellants’ drawing figures 1E and 1F.
Similarly, Chong refers to source/drain (22) as being a distinct
region from drain extension (14). See, e.g., figure 6 of Chong.
While Chong does refer to annealing, via laser radiation, the
source/drain region at column 5, lines 37-59, that step occurs
concurrently with the silicide layer formation, not before as
required by claims 1 and 11.
On this record, the examiner has not fairly established
that Chong represents an anticipatory disclosures of the subject
matter recited in the rejected claims. In this regard, the
examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim
limitations are described in a single reference. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Here, the examiner has not met that burden for the
reasons discussed above and in the briefs. Consequently, we will
not sustain the examiner’s Section 102(e) rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007