Appeal No. 1997-3691 Page 5
Application No. 08/298,018
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 6) that the examiner has improperly combined references which
teach away from each other in an obviousness rejection. The examiner asserts (answer, page 6) that it
would have been obvious to have “modified Feist by employing the disposable structure . . . .because
such would enable the formation of silicide regions separately if desired and because such disposable
structure would advantageously serve to pattern the gate and to reduce the risk of short circuit.”
Appellant takes the position (brief, page 6) that Feist teaches simultaneously forming silicide regions on
the gate structure and the source/drain regions, whereas both Rodder and Sitaram specifically teach to
the contrary by using their disposable structures to prevent this from occurring. We find that in Feist,
(figure 8, and col. 9, lines 50-68) metal silicide contacts (36), (38), and (40) are formed respectively
on the inactive base (26'), emitter (30), and collector (32) at the same time. In contrast, Rodder utilizes
a disposable structure (28) over the gate (30) in order to prevent a silicide region from being formed
over the source/drain regions and the gate at the same time. Rodder specifically teaches (col. 1, lines
60-64, and col. 6, lines 1-16) providing a thicker silicide layer over the gate in order to decrease the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007