Appeal No. 2005-1256
Application No. 09/988,593
alleges that Flaker discloses what is recited in the instant claims, but, for the most part,
the examiner does not specifically identify the portions of Flaker which allegedly teach
these specific limitations.
Thus, for example, at the bottom of page 3 of the answer, the examiner alleges
that Flaker teaches
...wherein said body link semiconductor region at least partially
has a first conductivity type impurity region not mixed with an
impurity of a second conductivity type different from said first
conductivity type but doped by only an impurity of said first
conductivity type and said first conductivity type semiconductor
region is formed in a region...
But the examiner points to no specific portion of Flaker which allegedly teaches
that a semiconductor region at least partially has a first conductivity type impurity region
not mixed with an impurity of a second conductivity type different from said first
conductivity type but doped by only an impurity of said first conductivity type. Moreover,
the examiner does not explain, in the rationale for the rejection, how Flaker is
interpreted to find such a teaching.
When this limitation is argued by appellants, the examiner’s response, at page 5
of the answer, is to point to Flaker’s disclosure of a precise control of the oxidation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007