Appeal No. 2001-1419
Application No. 09/199,960
claims 9-17 form a single group. Consistent with this
indication, Appellants have only argued limitations which are
present in independent claim 9. For purposes of this appeal, we
will consider claim 9 as representative of all of the claims on
appeal, and the appealed claims 9-17 will all stand or fall
together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136,
137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ
1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to representative independent claim 9, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to
modify the semiconductor structure fabrication process disclosure
of Chatterjee. According to the Examiner, Chatterjee discloses
the claimed invention except for “ . . . the formation of
elevated source/drain regions by growth of an epitaxial layer of
silicon adjacent the spacers and forming a silicide on said
epitaxial layers.” (Answer, page 3, which makes reference to
page 2 of the final Office action mailed May 24, 2000, Paper No.
5). To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Wolf and
Rodder which disclose semiconductor structures having elevated
source/drain regions with silicides formed thereon. In the
Examiner’s analysis, the skilled artisan would have been
motivated and found it obvious to “ . . . use the process as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007