Appeal 2007-0377
Application 10/151,897
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Hsue, we agree with the Examiner that tunnel oxide 20
controls the tunneling current between the monocrystalline and the polycrystalline
regions. Hsue describes the substrate as a monocrystalline silicon (col. 2, ll. 41-44)
in which the lightly doped drain (LDD) areas 18 are formed (col. 2, ll. 52-57).
Although impurities are introduced into substrate 10 for forming the drain regions,
contrary to Appellants’ assertion (Reply Br. 2), the single crystal structure of the
substrate in the doped areas does not change since low levels of implant dose and
energy are used, i.e., 1 E 13 to 5 E 13 atoms/cm2 at an energy of 40-80 KeV (col. 2,
ll. 55-57).
In view of the analysis above, we find that Hsue prima facie anticipates
claim 78 as the reference teaches all the recited features. Accordingly, the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 78, as well as claims 79, 80, and 82, argued
together with claim 1 as one group, over Hsue is sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013