Appeal No. 2000-1057
Application 09/016,100
prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must identify a
suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of the prior art
to achieve the claimed invention. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d
1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
suggestion or motivation to modify a reference may be implicit
from the prior art as a whole rather than expressly stated. Id.
However, regardless of whether the examiner relies on an express
or implicit showing, he must provide reasons for finding a
limitation to be taught or suggested in the reference. Id.
The examiner found that Grewal teaches the invention as
claimed with the exception of the following:
(1) Grewal does not disclose the step of reacting metal
with a conductive (polysilicon)layer to form metal silicide;
(2) Grewal deposits a hardmask over a refractory metal,
whereas the refractory metal is blanket deposited over the
hardmask in the method of the invention; and
(3) Grewal does not remove the hardmask.
Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 9, mailed June 23, 2000, page 3.
However, according to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
have modified the method of Grewal in view of the teachings in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007