Appeal No. 2006-1176
Application No. 09/926,202
The appellant separately argues that the substrate
resistivity recited in claims 10 through 13 is not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art references. See the Brief,
pages 10 - 11. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, the silicon substrate taught by
Wijaranakula is preferably made by a Czochralski process.
According to Wijaranakula (column 4, lines 24 and 35-38), the
preferred silicon substrate is doped with less than 300 ppma,
preferably approximately 3x1018 atoms/cm3 of boron. Wolf at page
27, Table 2, indicates that the boron doped Czochralski silicon
substrate taught by Wijaranakula has a substrate resistivity in
the range of 0.005 to 50 ohm-cm which embraces the claimed
substrate resistivity range. Wolf further explains that “[t]he
resistivity is related to the doping density.” See page 27.
Figure 22 at page 28 of Wolf appears to show that at the
concentration of a boron dopant preferred by Wijarankula, the
substrate resistivity is within the claimed range. Thus, from
our perspective, Wijaranakula either teaches or would have
suggested employing a silicon substrate having the claimed
resistivity as explained by Wolf. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329,
65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ
549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007