Appeal No. 94-0809
Application 07/707,365
forming an electrical contact to said gate structure,
said contact extending over said source/drain regions and
extending to said insulating regions.
2. Discussion
When comparing the invention appellants claim to the subject
matter the prior art disclosed or would have reasonably suggested
to a person having ordinary skill in the art, both the examiner
and appellants have in this case overemphasized the semiconductor
integrated circuits depicted in Figs. 1-6 of this specification,
which were manufactured in accordance with the method appellants
claim, and the integrated circuits depicted in Figs. 3(A-L)-5 of
Nishizaka. We believe their focus on the differences between the
structures of the integrated circuits depicted in appellants’ and
Nishizaka’s figures rather than on the steps of the methods of
manufacturing the integrated circuits broadly claimed and
described by the cited prior art has brought confusion to this
case. We remind both appellants and the examiner that the
patentability of the claimed method and its scope and content is
the issue on appeal. Just as a product’s patentability may not
be determined by the patentability of the method by which the
product is made, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964,
966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348,
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007