Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teaching for
providing a conductive layer patterned to form an opening over
a gate electrode already exists in the disclosure of Taji. In
our view, the issue to be decided is the question of whether
it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to apply
photolithographic techniques to formulate such patterned opening,
which question we would answer in the affirmative based on our
discussion supra. Further, although we find it sufficient that
the skilled artisan was taught to use photolithographic
techniques by Gandhi and Kameyama regardless of whether either of
these references actually disclosed forming an opening over a
gate electrode, we would point out that Kameyama clearly
discloses in figures 6c and 6d the formation of an opening over a
gate using a patterned photoresist.
For all of the above reasons, it is our opinion that, since
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been
rebutted by any evidence or convincing arguments from Appellant,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 7,
and dependent claim 9, the limitations of which have not been
separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 4 and 10 based on the addition of Ku and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007