Appeal No. 2006-1350
Application No. 10/074,732
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Dec. 10, 2004) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Sep. 22, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the
Brief (filed Jun. 30, 2005) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
Based on appellants’ arguments in the Brief, we will decide the appeal on the
basis of representative claims 1, 17, and 15. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants
advance numerous arguments in defense of the respective claimed subject matter.
However, we find that the Answer sets forth a reasonable basis for prima facie
unpatentability and is responsive to every argument presented by appellants, providing
a reasoned analysis as to why the arguments are not deemed persuasive in view of the
prior art that is applied. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner’s reasoning as our own
in sustaining the rejections and add the following comments for emphasis. To the
extent that any of appellants’ remarks could be considered arguments for separate
patentability of any claim other than 1, 17, or 15, we refer to the examiner’s findings in
the Answer in support of the rejection of the particular claim.
With respect to the basic combination of Adkisson and Fried as applied against
instant claim 1, the examiner finds (Answer at 3-6) that Adkisson teaches essentially all
that is required of the claim except for the steps of providing first and second directional
implants. The finding of a motivation for providing the double doping process as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007