Appeal No. 1997-3691 Page 8
Application No. 08/298,018
alia, the emitter region (30). In view of the teachings of Osinski, while we conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been taught to modify Feist to provide a disposable structure in
order to provide better patterning of the gate, simplified formation of the sidewall insulators (20), and
to reduce the chance of short circuit during the formation of the silicide regions, we find that even with
such a modification, the language of the claim would not be met. Claim 6 requires the step of forming a
gate structure, and then forming a disposable structure over the gate structure. Even if we provide Feist
with a disposable structure as taught by Osinski to pattern the gate, as advanced by the examiner
(answer, page 6), the claim language would not be met because the disposable structure would be
formed prior to the gate in order to pattern the gate which is the opposite of what the claim requires.
Moreover, claim 6 further requires
said conductive region formed on said silicide region formed on said gate
structure is located in substantially the same location as the disposable
structure with substantially the same thickness as the disposable structure.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 7) that none of the references teach this limitation because the region
where the conductive layer is formed on the silicide region formed on the gate is either unbounded or
the process utilized to form the conductive structure is such that the thickness of the conductive
structure would not be the same as that of the disposable structure. We agree. We are not persuaded
by the examiners assertion (answer, page 7) is that “such limitation is deemed to have been obvious
over the applied prior art” because (answer, page 6) “[i]t would have been obvious and would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007