Appeal No. 2005-1256
Application No. 09/988,593
depth and a lack of doping of the regions under element 62, arguing that “the reference
discloses that the doped region 60 are [sic] oxidized indicating that the regions under
oxide 62 are not doped,” pointing to column 6, lines 11-23.
The indicated portion of Flaker indicates “a selective equilibration body link”, that
N+ regions 60...oxidize without appreciable diffusion to form HIPOX regions 62,” and
that this “allows very precise control of the oxidation depth, since the oxidation rate will
slow markedly when the shallow N+ region is consumed,” but we find nothing indicating
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.
When appellants point out (principal brief-page 6) that there is no necessary link
between precise control of oxidation depth, as indicated by Flaker, and the claimed
limitation of a region “doped by only an impurity of said first conductivity type,” the
examiner alleges that appellants argue inherency of regions under element 60 being
doped, “but provides no reason to believe that doping as argued is inherent” (answer-
page 5).
The examiner has it backwards. It is the examiner’s initial burden to show a
prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants have no burden to refute a case of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007