Appeal No. 2003-1971
Application No. 09/489,970
Appellants concede that Tsai '024 does teach the removal of
the second spacer. However, Appellants argue that the process
used is prone to damaging the formed silicide cobalt.
While this court indeed warns against employing hindsight,
its counsel is just that--a warning. That warning does not
provide a rule of law that express, written motivation to combine
must appear in prior art references before a finding of
obviousness. Stated differently, this court has consistently
stated that a court or examiner may find a motivation to combine
prior art references in the nature of the problem to be solved.
Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686,
1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Also see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996); Display Techs. Inc. v. Paul Flum Ideas, Inc.,
282 F.3d 1340, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Huang, 100 F.3d
135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Upon our review of Tsai '024, we fail to find any teaching
that the removal process disclosed would damage the silicide
cobalt layer. Furthermore, Tsai '024 suggests that silicon
nitride can be removed with hot phosphoric acid. See Tsai '024,
column 4, lines 2-4. DeBoer also teaches the use of an APM
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007