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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007