Appeal No. 2005-0239
Application No. 10/145,421
advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude
that only the examiner’s Section 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejections, but
reverse the examiner’s Section 102 rejection. We also set forth
a new ground of rejection against claims 1 and 5. Our reasons
for these determinations follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (ANTICIPATION)
Under Section 102, the claimed subject matter is said to be
anticipated only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Lin teaches all
aspects of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the
examiner asserts that:
Lin et al. teach a method of producing an integrated
circuit comprising the steps providing a semiconductor
substrate 10; forming a gate dielectric 20 on an active
area on the substrate; depositing a polysilicon layer
30 on top of the gate dielectric; implanting a first
dopant into the gate (see Fig. 1A); patterning a second
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007