Appeal No. 96-0462
Application 08/165,513
no correspondence whatsoever between surface resistivity and
resistivity, which are expressed in different units."
We find that surface resistance is proportional to
resistivity. See Sze, Physics of Semiconductor Devices
(2d ed., John Wiley & Sons 1981), pages 30-32 (equations 49
and 49a) (copy attached). The Examiner should have provided a
reference on this disputed fact and not required us to find it
for ourselves. However, we find no convenient formula
interrelating surface resistivity (the term in the claim) and
resistance in the direction of the layer thickness; the
Examiner admits that he found none (EA9). It is not clear
what the Examiner's reason is for finding that "[t]he
1 MS/square point is overlapped by the range of the resistance
5 2
being 1 to 10 S/cm for a thickness of 10-300 nm" (FR4), since
the units of surface resistivity (S/G) are not the same as the
units for resistance in the direction of the layer thickness
(S/cm ). It appears that the Examiner's statement is merely2
unsupported speculation that the surface resistivity is
inherent. We agree with Appellants' argument that "[s]ince
Hanyu et al. make no reference whatsoever to any surface
resistivity values, there is nothing in that patent which
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007