Appeal No. 96-01612
Application 08/006,152
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Nickl 3,506,508 Apr. 14, 1970
Tsunashima et al.
(Tsunashima) 4,791,074 Dec. 13, 1988
(Filed Jul. 15, 1987)
Schachameyer et al.
(Schachameyer) 4,940,505 July 10, 1990
(Filed Dec. 2, 1988)
Ito (Japanese Kokai
Patent Publication) 63-166220 July 9, 1988
Silicon Processing for the VLSI ERA , Vol. 1: Process Technology,
Wolf et al., Lattice Press, Sunset Beach, California, 1986, pp
64-65 (hereinafter referred to as “Wolf”).
Appellants’ admission at pages 1 and 2 of the specification
(hereinafter referred to as “admitted prior art”).
Claims 1 through 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Tsunashima, Ito,
Wolf, the admitted prior art and either Nickl or Schachameyer.
We reverse.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a method of
producing a semiconductor device in the form of a metal insulator
semiconductor field effect transistor (hereinafter, referred to
as a “MISFET”) used in electronic instruments such as computers.”
See specification, page 1, lines 1-8. The method initially
involves removing an inert film from semiconductor regions of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007