Appeal No. 2006-0318 Application No. 10/195,271 We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of those claims. Claims 2-4 Liang discloses an integrated circuit comprising two transistors, one of which has a tantalum or molybdenum gate material (130) and the other of which has a tantalum nitride gate material (132) (col. 4, line 33; col. 5, lines 26-27 and 40; figure 7). Iwase discloses that many metals, one of which is niobium, are suitable gate electrode materials (col. 6, lines 66-67). The examiner argues: As is well known in the art, highly doped (N or P )+ + silicon is a conductive material. It is also well known in the art that highly doped silicon and metals are interchangeable. Hsu is used to show that the different gates can have different textures and Liang is used to show that the material of the gates can be tantalum or molybdenum. [answer, page 5] * * * Hsu is used to show that the different gates have different textures and Iwase is used to show that the material can be niobium. [answer, pages 5-6] The examiner has not provided evidence that Hsu’s disclosure of using polycrystalline silicon for one gate and amorphous silicon for another gate would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to metals such that the person 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007