Appeal No. 2003-1367
Application No. 09/640,237
based on Nguyen, Nakamura, and Maari and claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Nguyen,
Nakamura, and appellant's admitted prior art (Figs. 35-38, page 4, lines 26-29, and page 5, lines
1-5). We find that claims 3, 4, and 6 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the limitations of
claim 1 by reference. We note that appellant does not provide separate arguments as to claims
3, 4, or 6 beyond the arguments directed to the ground of rejection of claim 1. Because we find
that it was not improper to combine Nguyen with Nakamura under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) we sustain
the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6 as well.
We now turn to the examiner's decision rejecting claims 8 and 9 over Nakamura,
Takebuchi, and appellant's admitted prior art (Figs. 35-38, page 4, lines 26-29, and page 5, lines
1-5). The examiner admits that the limitation "planarizing said first barrier layer to expose said
at least one transistor gate member" is not taught in Nakamura. (Answer, page 9.) Takebuchi is
cited to overcome this deficiency in Nakamura. Takebuchi teaches planarizing a dielectric layer
6 down to the surface of the gate electrode 4 in order to improve contact resistance between the
gate electrode 4 and a contact wiring layer 11 formed on the gate electrode (Takebuchi, Fig. 1).
We do not see how it would be possible to planarize the dielectric layer 8 in Nakamura all of the
way down to the surface of the gate electrodes 4 as would be required to meet the "to expose"
limitation without destroying the adjacent conductor lines 6 which are elevationally above the
gate electrodes 4 and would appear to be all but entirely removed before the planarization could
"expose" the upper surface of the gate electrode. It is impermissible under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to
combine references where the proposed modification would render the prior art unsatisfactory
for
its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902, 221 USPQ at 1127. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 8 and 9 over Nakamura, Takebuchi, and appellant's admitted prior art (Figs.
35-38, page 4, lines 26-29, and page 5, lines 1-5) is reversed. All of the grounds of rejection that
are applied to claims 9 through 11 and 14 through 17 are likewise reversed since each of these
grounds rely on the propriety of the combination of Nakamura and Takebuchi in the manner
asserted with respect to claim 8.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007