Appeal No. 2003-0886
Application No. 09/466,845 Page 5
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that Chen does
not teach a salicide film formed on and in contact with the
surface of the source/drain regions. To overcome this deficiency
in Chen, the examiner turns to Hirano for a teaching of a
salicide layer 108 formed on and in contact with the surface of
the surfaces of source/drain regions. The examiner asserts (id.)
that it would have been obvious to have incorporated the salicide
layer as taught by Hirano on and in contact with the surface of
the source/drain regions in Chen in order to reduce the contact
resistances for the transistor.
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 5 and 6) that providing Chen
with the salicide layer of Hirano would result in Chen's
functionality being destroyed. Specifically, appellant argues
(brief, page 6) that if Chen's gate insulating film 48 were
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007