Appeal No. 2005-0287 Page 16
Application No. 09/216,214
In addition, appellant submits that Arai does not teach or
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, the option of
employing a lateral growth at the corners of the gate dielectric
but not under central gate areas such that the thickness of the
dielectric increases in a direction from the bottom surface
toward and along sidewalls of the gate.6 As explained by the
examiner, however, Arai does disclose such a gate dielectric
thickening as depicted in drawing figure 3B and discussed in the
disclosure of Arai as a bird’s beak type structure. See, e.g.,
column 5, lines 37-45 of Arai.
It follows that on this record, we shall affirm the
examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Concerning the other independent appealed claim, we note
that claim 10 does not require a thickened dielectric layer at
the gate corners. As for the recited silicide layer of claim 10,
appellant acknowledges, as set forth above, that Watabe discloses
6 That argument is undercut by appellant’s specification,
wherein appellant acknowledges that “smiling oxidation,” is a
technique for forming a wider oxide thickness at the gate
corners, which would have been commonly known. It is axiomatic
that consideration of the prior art cited by the examiner must,
of necessity, include consideration of the admitted state of the
art found in appellant's specification. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Davis, 305
F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 658 (CCPA 1962).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007