Appeal No. 1998-2896
Application No. 08/558,564
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 4) that “Tamura lacks
the teaching of the second non-monocrystalline
[polycrystalline] silicon and thus the showing of the
dielectric layer separating the polysilicon layers as now
claimed [in claim] 38 but does show however the dielectric 38
separating portions of the polysilicon 36 with layers that are
subsequently formed.”
For a teaching of a semiconductor device with a plurality
of polycrystalline silicon layers, the examiner turned to
Saitoh. According to the examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 5),
“Saitoh teaches forming on first polysilicon 3 having oxide
film
4 thereon second polysilicon 7 and silicide 5, wherein the use
of the second silicon obviates the need for cleaning the
surface of the first polysilicon prior to forming the silicide
and wherein the second polysilicon and the silicide are not
separated from each other at their boundary interface.” Based
upon the teachings of Saitoh, the examiner concludes (Answer,
page 5) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art at the time the invention was made in practicing the
Tamura process to have employed the second polysilicon layer
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007