Appeal No. 2005-0864 Page 6
Application No. 09/859,0864
require that element 50 of Figure 9B constitutes a structure
corresponding to appellant’s claimed “ion-implanted dopant supply
in at least one of the relaxed SiGe layer and the SiGe cap layer,
the dopant supply extending along said channel and having an ion-
implanted dopant profile.” See page 4 of the reply brief.
In this regard, we agree with appellant that the examiner
has not explained where Murakami offers any detailed description
of the profiles of the P+ regions (50, Fig. 9B) that would
necessarily describe a dopant supply extending along the channel
with the claimed type of profile.1 Inherency cannot be
established based on conjecture and/or probabilities or
possibilities. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ
323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
On this record, we reverse the stated § 102(b) rejection.
§ 103(a) Rejection
The examiner does not explain how Chu would have suggested
employing a channel dopant supply with the claimed type of
profile in Murakami. Consequently, we also reverse the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection, on this record.
1 See appellant’s brief, pages 5-8 and the reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007