Ex Parte ADAN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0886                                                        
          Application No. 09/466,845                                 Page 2           


          of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim           
          1, which is reproduced as follows:                                          
               1. A semiconductor device comprising:                                  
               an insulating film, a plurality of word lines parallel to              
          one another, a gate insulating film and a first conductivity type           
          semiconductor layer that are formed in this order;                          
               wherein the surface of said insulating film is rendered flat           
          with respect to the surface of said word lines, and said first              
          conductivity type semiconductor layer includes parallel bit lines           
          each comprising a second conductivity type high concentration               
          impurity diffusion layer crossing said word lines, and                      
               wherein on at least one of the bit lines a salicide film is            
          formed on and in contact with the surface of said second                    
          conductivity type high concentration impurity diffusion layer.              
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Hirano                      5,652,159             Jul. 29, 1997             
          Kapoor                      5,780,350             Jul. 14, 1998             
          Chen et al. (Chen)          5,828,113             Oct. 27, 1998             
               Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)             
          as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hirano.                          
               Claims 2, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hirano and further in            
          view of Kapoor.  Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints           
          advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted            
          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.           
          16, mailed November 20, 2002) for the examiner's complete                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007