Appeal No. 96-1271
Application No. 08/190,388
other.” As shown in Publication 1, Table XXI, at page 95, in
Exhibit A (as well as the other publications forming part of
Exhibit A), attached to the principal brief, when forming
titanium silicide, the main diffuser is silicon whereas in
forming palladium silicide or platinum silicide, the main
diffuser is palladium or platinum. Thus, appellant has
established, by objective evidence, that palladium or platinum
silicide clearly does not exhibit the same properties as
titanium silicide. The examiner has not countered this
argument with any objective evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, it is our view that the preponderance of the
evidence favors appellant’s position of nonobviousness of the
instant claimed subject matter.
The examiner takes the position that Lechaton suggests
the use of a silicide to provide reduced contact resistance.
Yet, the examiner fails to point to anything in Lechaton which
would lead to such a suggestion. Furthermore, as pointed out
by appellant, at page 4 of the reply brief, and identifying a
textbook reference as support thereof, contact resistance is2
2 VLSI Technology, S.M. Sze; McGraw Hill; 1983; Chapter
9, pages 347-350.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007