Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
note that in column 3, lines 29-57, Mizuno teaches that the
metal oxide layer 15 is formed over the gate 13 and then later
etched off the top of gate 13. Therefore we find that Mizuno
does teach Appellants' claimed limitation of "forming a metal
oxide layer over the gate and a portion of the substrate" as
recited in Appellants' claim 1. Therefore we find that Mizuno
anticipates Appellants' claimed invention and thereby will
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 9.
In regard to the rejection of claim 2 as being
anticipated by Mizuno, Appellants argue on page 3 of the Reply
Brief, that if the substrate is interpreted as including oxide
film 12 as disclosed in Mizuno, the recited gate oxide layer
which forms a part of the gate according to claim 2 is absent.
We agree. Therefore we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Mizuno.
In regard to the rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Hunter, the Examiner
states that Mizuno does not teach implanting lightly doped
drained regions after a sidewall spacer is formed on the gate
electrode sidewall. Examiner argues that Hunter discloses
forming a sidewall spacer 8 and forming an implant to form a
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007