Appeal No. 1997-3635
Application No. 08/498,357
find that Wong’s silicon layer has a thickness such that the
contact resistance of the barrier layer is not substantially
increased as the silicon layer is fully consumed by reacting
with the metal.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the Examiner
has met the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation. We find that Wong teaches the formation of
silicon and metal layers over a semiconductor substrate as
recited in Appellant’s independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, and
19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 over Wong.
Turning to the rejection of claims 3, 8, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wong, Appellant on pages 8 and 9 of the
brief argues that the claimed thickness of metal and silicon
layers have particular significance. Additionally, Appellant
refers to different parts of the specification and points out
the thickness of various layers in relation to the claimed
thickness as specified for the metal and the silicon layers.
In response, the Examiner argues on page 7 of the answer that
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007