Appeal No. 2001-1545
Application No. 09/199,666
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here,
appellants argued that neither Chau nor Thomas evidences the claimed second gate
dielectric formed on the first gate dielectric beneath a metal gate electrode in a
semiconductor structure. (See brief at page 3.) The examiner maintains that Chau
teaches at col. 5, lines 26-29, that the language of “other well known gate dielectrics
such as oxides, nitrides and combinations thereof may be utilized” for the gate
electrode. The examiner maintains that other well known combinations of oxides and
nitrides include multi-layer dielectrics not specifically shown in Figure 3E and that this
teaching of Chau alone would have suggested the claimed layers. (See answer at
pages 3-4.) In the alternative, the examiner relies upon the teachings of Thomas with
respect to Figure 6 and description at col. 3 of the gate dielectric layer 40. The
examiner acknowledges that neither Chau nor Thomas expressly show the gate
dielectric layer as having two layers, but relies upon the language in the descriptions to
suggest that there would be two layers in alternative embodiments. (See answer at
pages 3-4.)
Appellants argue that the examiner has not shown in the prior art applied, the
use of multiple separate layers for the gate dielectric. (See brief at page 4.) We agree
with appellants, and we do not find that the examiner has shown or provided a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007