Appeal No. 2001-2037
Application No. 08/884,912
not the same problem with which a reference is concerned, a claim
may still be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) if each and
every element of the claim and its attendant function is taught
by the reference, as here.
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner
relies on the combination of Young and Song to reject independent
claim 10 and its dependent claims, adding Ventkatesan to the
combination with regard to claim 16.
In particular, the examiner contends that Young discloses
the formation of gate dielectric layer 211, formation of a
silicon layer 212 over the gate dielectric layer, formation of
spacers in Figure 4b, doping the silicon layer with N-type or P-
type dopants, and the formation of a silicide in Figure 4d.
Pages 4-5 of the answer describes other teachings of Young. The
examiner indicates that Young teaches the claimed subject matter
but for specifically showing the spacers having a height which is
greater than the sum of the gate electrode and the silicide
layer. However, the examiner contends that Song discloses such a
relationship, i.e., spacers having a height which is greater than
the sum of the gate electrode and the silicide layer and that it
would have been obvious to modify Young with this teaching of
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007