Appeal No. 95-2859
Application 08/118,109
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the appellant’s own
admitted prior art of Figures 1-3 in view of Morris.
The determinative issue is whether Morris discloses a
resistor which underlies a "resistor masking conductor" formed
from a conductor layer also forming the gate of a transistor. In
the appellant’s own admitted prior art of Figures 1 and 2, the
resistor underlies either field oxide 107 (Figure 1) or deposited
oxide region 212 and grown oxide region 211 (Figure 2). That
does not satisfy the claimed feature of having a resistor which
underlies a resistor masking conductor made from the same
conductor layer forming the gate of the transistor. The examiner
is relying on Morris to fill this deficiency in the appellant’s
own admitted prior art. (Answer at page 3).
Morris does disclose use of a polysilicon layer for forming
the gate of the transistor as well as a mask for forming the
resistor. However, in Morris the formed resistor does not
"underlie" the polysilicon mask. Indeed, with reference to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007