Appeal No. 1998-0694
Application No. 08/637,009
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although appellant primarily focuses on the titanium
silicide film of Levinstein and the alleged fact that this
titanium silicide film would not suffer agglomeration because
of its thickness, the Board in the previous decision indicated
that Yang was the more relevant reference. Yang clearly
teaches the formation of an oxide film over a titanium
silicide film. Yang teaches an example in which the titanium
silicide film would have a thickness of about 540 Angstroms
[note previous Board decision]. A film of this thickness is
not far removed from the thicknesses at which appellant’s
invention is intended to work (less than 500 Angstroms).
Nevertheless, we have no analysis on this record as to whether
the range of devices disclosed in Yang would have suggested
the obviousness of the device recited in these appealed
claims. In other words, the considerations necessary to make
a determination of the obviousness of the appealed claims are
not presently of record in this application and are,
therefore, not before us at this time.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007