Appeal No. 2006-2832
Application No. 09/833,953
dopes said layer over said transistor gate region (4) and said field oxide region (5)
with a second dose of a second dopant (13) of a second conductivity type, where
the first dose is higher than said second dose, and where the electrical properties of
the transistor gate are unaffected by said second dose. The ranges will be
discussed below. The reference Shao teaches forming a silicide blocking oxide
layer (Shao – 60) over a portion of said layer over the field oxide region (Shao –
12), doping with an additional dose of the dopant of the second conductivity type,
and fabricating contact regions (Shao – column 8, lines 9 ff).
Appellant presents a number of arguments against this prima facie case for
obviousness. His first argument is to indicate that each of the references lacks one
or more features of the claims, notwithstanding the examiner’s assertions that those
missing elements are in another of the references. For example, at the bottom of
page 7 of the Brief, Appellant remarks, “However, Zaccherini fails to teach,
disclose, or suggest forming a layer over a transistor gate region, which is situated
over a well in a substrate.” It is noted that the Examiner has presented such wells
to be in the prior art by referring to the teachings of Erdeljac. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based
on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013