Appeal No. 2005-0864 Page 4
Application No. 09/859,0864
obviousness. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
stated rejections on this record substantially for reasons set
forth in appellant’s briefs.
§ 102(b) Rejection
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim
limitations appear in a single reference. See In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102, all of the elements of the claim must be found
in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v.
Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
Here, the examiner has not convincingly explained where
Murakami describes a structure which falls within the scope of
the so rejected appealed claims. Concerning the appealed claims’
requirement for an “ion-implanted dopant supply in at least one
of the relaxed SiGe layer and the SiGe cap layer, the dopant
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007