Appeal No. 2005-0287 Page 7
Application No. 09/216,214
disclosed step 155, the examiner concludes that the source/drain
regions would not be aligned with the silicide layer, as claimed.
See answer, page 4.
Appellant, on the other hand, maintains that the originally
filed application, particularly the first full paragraph of page
8 of the specification and drawing figures 2C and 2D make clear
to one of ordinary skill in the art that appellant was in
possession of the claimed subject matter because “the
source/drain regions 80 are formed to the side of the sidewalls
and are therefore in alignment with the silicide layer (which is
merely the metal layer 50 converted to the silicide 60).” See
pages 4 and 5 of the brief. As for the examiner’s allegations of
the movement of the gate sidewall boundary and the source/drain
regions rendering the source/drain regions unaligned with the
silicide layer, appellant maintains that “lateral dispersal of
source/drain dopant is, at most, de minimus” (second reply brief,
page 2) and appellant again notes the page 8 specification
teaching that “conformal metal on the sidewalls of the gate acts
to mask that portion of the substrate from receiving this
implant” (second reply brief, page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007