Appeal No. 95-3455
Application 07/945,902
Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, we shall first determine the scope and content of
"appellants' admissions."
Under the caption "Description of the Prior Art" on page
1 of their specification, appellants recite at lines 17
through 24 that:
As a method for forming a floating gate electrode
formed by laminating a polysilicon layer or by
alternatingly laminating a polysilicon and a
tungsten silicide layer with a tunnel oxide
sandwiched between said substrate and said
polysilicon layer, known is a method wherein a
tungsten silicide layer is laminated on a
polysilicon layer with a CVD technique of reducing
WF gas with SiH gas at 300EC to 400EC under reduced6 4
pressure.
At oral hearing, appellants' legal representative was asked if
the salient step in the claimed process vis-à-vis the prior
art referenced in their specification at page 1 was the use in
step "(c)" of claim 6 of dichlorosilane instead of silane.
Appellants' legal representative answered in the affirmative.
See also page 2 of appellants' brief, lines 12 and 13. Thus,
claim 6 (unamended) differs from the admitted prior art
process only in requiring dichlorosilane as the reducing gas
for tungsten hexafluoride rather than silane as the reducing
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007