Appeal No. 2005-2695
Application No. 10/280,926
still have support for the claimed subject matter in the written description. We find that
appellants have not shown support for the use of the electrodes as a mask or the well
known self-aligned technology. (Reply Brief at page 3.) Appellants argue that anyone
skilled in the art would be familiar with the well known self-aligned technology wherein
the gate electrode is utilized as a mask for ion implantation and that anyone [not even a
skilled artisan] who has ever used a mask in painting would understand that anything
that is already in position on a substrate would act as a mask in an ensuing
coating/exposure process such as ion implantation. (Reply Brief at page 3.) We
disagree with appellants’ conclusion and reliance on the knowledge of the skilled artisan
to remedy the deficiency in the instant specification. From our review of the portions of
the specification cited by appellants, we cannot agree with appellants that the
specification or the drawings clearly show a self-aligned process or technology.
Appellants argue that Figure 7 shows that the N and P regions are “precisely self-
aligned.” (Reply Brief at page 3.) Appellants repeatedly cite to brief portions of the
specification which we have found to be unsupportive of the use of the electrodes as a
mask and appellants maintain that the examiner’s assertions are baseless. (Reply Brief
at page 4.) We cannot agree with appellants and find that the attorney arguments are
not persuasive and that the repeated recitation to the portions of the specification which
do not clearly or even impliedly support these assertions does not strengthen appellants
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007