Appeal No. 2005-0864 Page 5
Application No. 09/859,0864
supply extending along said channel and having an ion-implanted
dopant profile” as recited in independent claims 1 and 21, the
examiner refers to “dopant profile 50, fig. 9B” of Murakami as
corresponding to that claimed feature. See page 3 of the answer.
As maintained by the examiner (answer, page 7):
In fig. 9B[,] of (sic) Murakami shows the ion implant
dopant profile P+ 50 region, [see] column 8, line 44,
extending in at least one of the relaxed SiGe layer 31
and the SiGe cap layer 32. Clearly, any[one of]
ordinary skill in the art can plainly see that P+ 50
region has an ion-implanted dopant profile (P+ is as
the result (sic) of ion implantation having a profile);
therefore [the] P+ 50 region [of Murakami] would [have
been] read on [by] the claim language. The Appellant
has failed to explicitly define what is the meaning of
the word “profile” in the specification; thus[,] the
words of a (sic) claim[s] must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and their “plain meaning[.]” [S]ee MPEP
2111.
The Examiner submits that Murakami’s structure
discloses the explicit[ly] recited ‘ion-implanted
dopant profile’ claimed limitation.
As explained by appellant in the briefs, however, the
examiner has not carried the burden of establishing where in
Murakami any detailed explanation of the profiles of the P+
regions (50, Fig. 9B) is presented that would necessarily
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007