Appeal No. 2005-0328
Application No. 09/723,655
In response, the examiner states, on pages 7 and 8 of the answer:
With regard to the appellant’s arguments that “Davies teaches
forming sidewall spacers 18 before forming low resistivity regions 17,” it
should be noted that Davies, in column 4, lines 38-43, specifically recites
the situation where sidewall spacers are not used in implanting the low
resistivity regions 17 which correspond to the claimed second base
diffusion. Thus Davies teaches in figures 1-4 and column 4, lines 38-43
the limitation wherein the stripes of oxide and polysilicon do not include
sidewall spacers during implanting and diffusion of the second base
diffusion. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection
is proper.
With regard to the appellant’s argument that “Davies actually
teaches away from using the oxide and polysilicon stripes as a mask in
forming the second base regions (low resistivity regions 17),” it should be
noted Davies never states that the claimed situation cannot produce a
working device. While Davies suggests in column 4, lines 25-43 “it has
been found that if a thin oxide, analogous to oxide 15 [which is a misprint
and should be ‘oxide 16’] shown in Fig.1, is used rather than a sidewall
spacer 18, insufficient separation between base 12 and low resistively
region 17 is provided, and correspondingly low yield result,” (emphasis
added [by examiner]) it is clear that insufficient separation does not make
the device inoperable. Low yields, whether good or bad, do not make
Davies teach away from the subject matter. On the contrary, the low
yields cited by Davies when sidewall spacers are not used prove that this
method is disclosed and does produce a working device. Therefore,
appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is proper.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Claim 9 includes the limitation
“wherein said stripes of oxide and polysilicon do not include sidewall spacers
during implanting and diffusing of said first base diffusion stripes, said source
diffusions, and said second base diffusions.” We concur with the appellant that
Davies teaches away from this limitation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007