Appeal No. 2001-2037
Application No. 08/884,912
and the top surface of the silicide layer has a height less than
the top surface of the isolation region, as claimed.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the subject
matter of claims 8, 9 and 24 is anticipated by Subbanna.
Appellants argue that Subbanna discloses a silicide layer
which is coplanar with the top surface of the isolation regions
rather than being of less height than the top surface of the
isolation region. However, appellants must be looking at
silicide layer W, rather than WSi. Layer WSi, formed on the
bottom of the recesses, may also be considered a “silicide layer”
and this particular silicide layer meets the claim language.
It matters not that Subbanna does not mention the height of
the silicide layer as compared with the height of the substrate
surface. Sometimes the story is told by reference to the
drawings. While drawings are not always an accurate assessment
of relative measurements because they may not be drawn to scale,
in this particular case, it is very clear that silicide layer WSi
in Figure 9 has a height less than the height of the substrate
surface since layer W occupies space between the top of layer Wsi
and the top surface of the substrate.
Even if the problem with which appellants are concerned is
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007