Appeal No. 2001-1419
Application No. 09/199,960
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See
also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224,
226 (CCPA 1973).
Further, it is a basic tenet of patent law that skill of an
artisan working in a particular field of endeavor is to be
presumed. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). The factual situation presented to us here
leads us to the finding that the artisan working in the field of
semiconductor fabrication, given the clear motivation provided by
Rodder and Wolf to implement silicided elevated source/drain
technology in the device of Chatterjee, would know how to
construct a device structure so that electrical shorts do not
occur. It is further our view that, in contrast to Appellants’
contention, the TiN layer in Chatterjee would serve as a
protection against any contact with the gate that might cause an
electrical short. We would also point out that Rodder, as
illustrated in Figure 8, had no difficulty in constructing a gate
structure in which a metal contact 36 is incorporated into a
device with a silicided region 34.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007