Appeal No. 2000-0465
Application 08/826,110
The Examiner argues that, even though Calawa does not explicitly disclose a
barrier layer, this feature is an inherent teaching of Calawa’s device with a Ge layer
acting as a barrier layer between palladium and gold layers. Examiner’s Answer, page 4,
lines 9-15. The Examiner further states that Calawa’s ohmic contact structure includes
palladium, germanium and gold layers (Pd/Ge/Au), where germanium clearly acts as a
barrier layer between the palladium and the gold layers. Examiner’s Answer, page 6,
lines 8-14.
Upon careful review of Calawa, we fail to find that Calawa teaches
“Pd/barrier/Au layers” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1, 7 and 13. Appellant has shown
that it is standard in the semiconductor metallization art for germanium to be used as a
dopant in the Pd/Ge/Au structure of Calawa. Thus, the germanium in the Pd/Ge/Au
ohmic contacts of Calawa is a dopant and not a barrier. Therefore, we find that Calawa
fails to teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13, and thus the claims are not
anticipated by Calawa.
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in the prior art
or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed
subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007