Appeal No. 2001-0776
Application 09/276,043
The following references are relied on by the examiner as
evidence of unpatentability:
Chow et al. (Chow) 4,847,111 July 11, 1989
Mendonca et al. (Mendonca) 4,749,597 June 7, 1988
Urquhart et al. (Urquhart) 5,264,070 Nov. 23, 1993
Contreras et al. (Contreras) 5,556,506 Sep. 17, 1996
Suehiro et al. (Suehiro) 5,719,410 Feb. 17, 1998
Ek et al. (Ek) 5,759,898 June 2, 1998
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Contreras in view of
Urquhart, Ek, Mendonca, and further in view of Suehiro.
Claims 11, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Mendonca.
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14
We consider claim 1 in this rejection and note that
appellants argue claim 11 for the same reasons provided for claim
1 (brief, page 5).
The examiner finds that Contreras in view of Urquhart teach
the steps set forth in appellants’ claim 1 except for a thickness
of less than 5nm (for the silicon layer in step (b)), utilizing
CVD as the method for depositing the tungsten layer of step (d),
and the tunneling thickness of the silicon nitride layer of step
(c). The examiner relies upon the secondary references of Ek,
Mendonca, and Suehiro for teaching these other aspects of
appellants’ claimed subject matter. See pages 4-6 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007