Ex parte WUU et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-2887                                                        
          Application No. 08/630,111                                                  


               said third insulating layer openings extending to said                 
          amorphous layer and further to said third polysilicon layer,                
          and said third insulating layer having other openings to                    
          device areas elsewhere on said substrate;                                   
               conducting plugs in said third insulating layer openings               
          and thereby having low resistance ohmic stacked contacts for                
          said thin film transistors and other conducting plugs in said               
          other openings elsewhere to device areas on said substrate;                 
               a patterned first metal layer forming electrical                       
          interconnections, and thereby having said novel plug structure              
          on said SRAM cell.                                                          
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Krishna                       4,639,274                Jan. 27,             
          1987                                                                        
          Kobayashi et al. (Koyabashi)       0 603 622           Jun. 29,             
          1994                                                                        
          (European Patent Application)                                               
               Claims 14 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103              
          as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art Figures 1                 
          through 5 in view of Kobayashi and Krishna.                                 
               Reference is made to the final rejection, the brief and                
          the answer for the respective positions of the appellants and               
          the examiner.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               The obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 18 is                   
          reversed.                                                                   


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007