Appeal No. 2005-0287 Page 18
Application No. 09/216,214
Regarding dependent claims 14 and 16, appellant argues those
claims together. Thus, we select claim 14 as representative of
that claim grouping. With respect to representative claim 14 and
the lightly doped source/drain extensions thereof, Watabe
discloses such LDD structures as evident by a review of the
patent disclosure and drawing figures 8D, 8E, 9D and 9E. Thus,
in addition to the reasons set forth in the answer regarding the
combined teachings of Watabe and Arai, Watabe alone reasonably
suggests the structure of representative claim 14.
Concerning claim 26 and the requirement thereof that the
silicide extend to a gate dielectric, as argued, we note that the
sidewall silicide layers of drawing figures 8D, 8E, 9D and 9E of
Watabe extend to the gate dielectric. Thus, in addition to the
reasons set forth in the answer and above regarding the combined
teachings of Watabe and Arai, Watabe alone reasonably suggests
the argued structure of dependent claim 26.
Appellant groups claims 18, 20, 22 and 24 together at page 8
of the brief in arguing that the applied references do not teach
or suggest a dielectric of increased thickness as claimed
therein. We select claim 18 as a representative claim of that
claim grouping. As explained above with respect to appealed
claim 9 and for reasons stated in the answer, we do not find
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007