Appeal No. 2005-0328
Application No. 09/723,655
Davies states “Width of the sidewall spacer 18 is a critical feature of the
present invention” (column 4, lines 25-26) “[i]f this spacing is too small, or varies
widely due to the process control of forming the spacer 18, low resistivity region
17 will extend into channel 26, destroying the device. For example, it has been
found that if a thin oxide, analogous to oxide 15 [sic, 16] shown in Fig. 1, is used
rather than a sidewall spacer 18, insufficient separation between base 12 and
low resistivity region 17 is provided, and correspondingly low yields result”
(column 4, lines 35-43). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art reading these
sections of Davies would be discouraged from pursuing the path of
manufacturing the device without the use of sidewall spacers. The examiner has
presented no other evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to not include sidewall spacers during implanting and diffusing of said
base diffusion stripes, said source diffusions and said second base diffusions.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie of
obviousness and we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 9 or dependent claims 10 through 14, 21 and 22.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007