Appeal No. 1998-0694
Application No. 08/637,009
35 U.S.C. § 112. The admitted prior art in appellant’s
specification clearly identifies the problem that the titanium
silicide films of the prior art agglomerate at certain
annealing temperatures. The original specification also
clearly identifies that the solution to this problem is to
form a thermal oxide film over the titanium silicide film
which prevents such agglomeration at these annealing
temperatures. Since the entire premise of the disclosed
invention is that the titanium silicide agglomerates without
the thermal oxide, but does not agglomerate with the thermal
oxide, it is quite apparent that appellant was describing a
device in which agglomeration would occur in the absence of
the thermal oxide. This description is clearly commensurate
in scope with the language of the claims which has been
objected to by the examiner in formulating the rejection.
Therefore, we conclude that the original disclosure in this
application provides proper support for the invention now
being claimed.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22, 24-28 and
30-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007