Appeal No. 96-1271
Application No. 08/190,388
it does not teach or suggest a metal silicide selected from
the group listed in the claims.
The examiner cites Welch which teaches a titanium
silicide layer 68 used in a bipolar transistor device. The
examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to use
the particular silicide material (i.e., titanium silicide) of
Welch in the Lechaton device “since the prior art specifically
teaches that such a silicide layer on a heavily doped external
base region results in reduced contact resistance” [final
rejection-page 2].
It is the examiner’s substitution of titanium silicide
for the platinum or palladium silicide layer in Lechaton to
which appellant vehemently objects. It is appellant’s
position that there would have been nothing to lead the
artisan to make the substitution, all evidence of record
appearing to “teach away” from such a substitution. We agree
with appellant.
As pointed out by appellant, at page 13 of the principal
brief, “titanium silicide and palladium silicide are not mere
equivalents which could be readily substituted for each
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007