Appeal No. 2006-1350
Application No. 10/074,732
described by Fried is based on the express teaching of Fried. Paragraph 7 of the
reference teaches that asymmetric doping of a gate will shift threshold voltages to
CMOS compatible levels in “planar double-gate devices as well as FinFETs.” The
examiner further provides reasonable explanations as to why the artisan would
appreciate that further limitations of the claim are described or suggested by the
combined teachings of the references.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the rejections frequently note admitted
deficiencies of each reference if considered alone. However, nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon
the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
Other of appellants’ arguments are moot in view of an apparent shift in the
examiner’s position in the Answer. In the Final Rejection (at 12), the examiner held that
the embodiment relied upon in Fried teaches formation of a double gate device. In the
Answer (at 19), the examiner finds that the references are properly combinable even if,
as appellants argue, Fried does not describe a double gate structure. Adkisson teaches
a double gate structure, and the examiner finds there was motivation for applying the
asymmetric doping taught by Fried regardless of whether Fried might teach a
continuous (single) gate structure. We consider the examiner’s position in the Answer
to be reasonable and unrebutted. Appellants were not unfairly prejudiced by the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007