Appeal No. 2005-2277 Page 7
Application No. 10/099,680
B. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Bae "relates to a process for fabricating a semiconductor device having a
gate-drain overlapped device (GOLD) structure, in particularly a MOS transistor
thereof." Col. 1, ll. 6-9. Although the reference uses implantation to define highly doped
source and drain regions and lower doped regions, the examiner admits that Bae
employs "an extra ion implantation step," (Examiner's Answer at 6), to do so. For its
part, the reference describes two implantations. First, as shown in Figure 3C of Bae, an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007