Appeal No. 2005-0773
Application No. 09/517,987
independent claims 93 and 96 as were just recited with respect to
independent claim 77, with the additional recitation that the
recited regions of the source and drain within the substrate are
“at least lightly doped.” The corresponding regions on the
substrate are merely recited to be “suitable for heavily doped
source and drain regions.”2 Claims 93 and 96 conclude with
corresponding wherein clauses as in independent claim 77.
At pages 9 and 10 of the principal brief on appeal,
appellants’ principal arguments are that Hsu is silent as to the
heavily doped epitaxial regions 50 in figures 4, 5, 9 and 10 of
Hsu functioning together with the shallow source/drain regions
24 and 26 as source and drain regions of the respective
transistor shown. Appellants further assert that Hsu does not
refer to the heavily doped epitaxial regions 50 as source or
drain regions or portions thereof. Appellants’ arguments
continue by asserting that Hsu indicates that heavily doped
2The prosecution history in this application presumes that
the recitation of “suitable for” is a positive recitation where
in our view it clearly is not. A mere suitability for heavily
doped source and drain regions does not positively recite that
the regions are heavily doped and it does not positively recite
that the regions are source and drain regions as well. These
observations, however, do not affect our decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007