Appeal No. 2006-2832
Application No. 09/833,953
871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant then argues that “Thus, in Zaccherini, the respective implant
dosage ranges of the N type dopant and the P type dopant overlap” (Brief, page 8).
Zaccherini indicates a preferred range for the N type dopant between 1 x 1015 and
1 x 1016 ions/cm2 (column 3, line 28) and a range for the P type second dopant
between 1 x 1012 and 1 x 1015 ions/cm2 (column 3, line 51). Although the first
range is “contemplated” by Zaccherini at broader figures mentioned by Appellant
(5 x 1014 to 1 x 1016), the surrounding text clearly indicates that the first dose is
intended to be heavy, and the second dosage is intended to be medium or low
(column 3, line 49). We find that the teaching is a first range higher than the
second, as claimed, and not overlapping as argued.
However, Appellant further argues that “Erdeljac fails to teach, disclose, or
remotely suggest a transistor gate region situated over a well and a field oxide
region not situated over the well…” (Brief, page 10). Examiner notes “It would
have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings so Zaccherini and Erdeljac et al. to enable forming the gate transistors
and field oxide regions of Zaccherini on the substrate of Erdeljac et al.…”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013