Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1853                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 09/983,625                                                  

          regions.  A further understanding of the invention can be derived           
          from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.             
                    1.  A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device,             
               comprising the steps of:                                               
                    forming a gate electrode over a substrate and a gate              
               oxide between the gate electrode and the substrate;                    
                    implanting dopants within the substrate to form                   
               source/drain regions in the substrate proximate to the gate            
               electrode;                                                             
                    laser thermal annealing to active the source/drain                
               regions; and                                                           
                    forming a nickel silicide layer disposed on the                   
               source/drain regions after the laser thermal annealing of              
               the source/drain regions.                                              
               The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the              
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Chong et al. (Chong)          6,365,446           Apr. 02, 2002             
                                                  (filed Jul. 03, 2000)               
               Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being           
          anticipated by Chong.                                                       
               We refer to the briefs and to the answer for a complete                
          exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and           
          the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.                
                                       OPINION                                        
               Upon consideration of the respective positions advanced by             
          appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejection that is           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007