Appeal No. 2005-0239
Application No. 10/145,421
doped gate region 45; implanting a second dopant into
the second doped gate region (see Figs. 1C); patterning
the gate regions 75 (see Fig. 1F); etching the gate;
then, annealing the gates (see claim 13) and implanting
the source/drain adjacent the gate (see column 5 line
14). Although the embodiment presented in columns 3-5
teaches implanting an n-type dopant and then a p-type
dopant, opposite of that presently claimed, line 31 in
column 5 indicates that the implant dopant types could
be reversed without changing the method.
However, as correctly argued by the appellants, Lin, at column 5,
line 31, does not teach that “the implant dopant types could be
reversed” as alleged by the examiner. Accordingly, we concur
with the appellant that Lin does not anticipate the claimed
subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
35 U.S.C. § 103 (OBVIOUSNESS)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, there must be some objective teachings or
suggestions in the prior art and/or knowledge generally available
to a person having ordinary skill in the art that would have led
such a person to arrive at the claimed subject matter. See
generally In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 245 USPQ2d 1443,
1446-47 (fed. Cir. 1992)(Nies, J., concurring); In re Vaeck, 947
F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 2 and 7 through 17 under Section 103, the examiner relies
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007