Appeal No. 2000-0465
Application 08/826,110
being unpatentable over Calawa and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11
and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Calawa and Hatano.
We will first address the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It
is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art
reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Appellant’s claims 1, 7 and 13 recite Pd/barrier/Au layers, the palladium layer
being in contact with the semiconductor base of a semiconductor electronic device.
Appellant argues that Calawa’s ohmic contacts 18 of Ni/Ge/Au and Pd/Ge/Au do not
teach a barrier. Appeal Brief, page 3, line 19, to page 4, line 2. More specifically,
Appellant argues that Calawa does not teach, inherently or otherwise, a Ge layer acting as
a barrier layer between palladium and gold. Reply Brief, page 1, lines 13-14. Appellant
further argues that the Ge layer in Calawa is not intended to act as a diffusion barrier, but
rather to act as a dopant. Reply Brief, page 1, lines 14-17. Appellant asserts that the
standard use of Ge is as a dopant when forming n-type ohmic contacts to semiconductors,
and cites support from the text entitled “Semiconductor Material And Device
Characterization.” Appeal Brief, page 1, line 17, to page 2, line 6. Appellant
distinguishes the Ge layer in Calawa from a barrier layer acting as a diffusion barrier as
serving completely different purposes. Reply Brief, page 2, lines 7-10.
2 The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s Brief, mailed an Examiner’s Answer on July 2, 1999. An office
communication was mailed on September 25, 2001 acknowledging Appellant’s amendment to the claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007