Appeal 2007-2101
Application 10/859,552
express basis in the claim.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to claim 18,
the Examiner properly construes the claim features, “forming silicide
regions comprising a first metal in said drain and source regions” and
“forming a nickel silicide/cobalt silicide layer stack region in said gate
electrode,” as not requiring different metals to form the silicides (Answer 5).
Plainly, Appellants’ claims do not require that the “first metal” used to form
the silicide regions on the drain and source regions is different than the metal
used to form the “nickel silicide/cobalt silicide layer stack region.”
Appellants argue that the Specification at page 9, lines 9-16 and page
14, lines 5-12 indicate that different metals are used to form the silicide
regions in the source and drain regions and the silicide in the gate electrode
such that the argued claim features should be construed as requiring different
metals (Br. 4 and 5). However, Appellants’ claim construction would have
us improperly read limitations into the claim that have no express basis in
the claim. Prater, 415 F.2d at 1404-05, 162 USPQ at 550-51.
Additionally, as the Examiner noted both Yu and Wieczorek disclose
that it is known in the art to use different metals to form the silicide layer in
the drain and source regions and in the gate electrode (Answer 5; Yu, col. 7,
ll. 45-47; Wieczorek, col. 6, ll. 51-54; col. 7, ll. 1-5). Therefore, even if the
claim is construed as argued by Appellants, the Yu or Wieczorek disclosures
would render obvious a claim construction that requires the “first metal”
used to form the silicide material in the source and drain regions to be
different than the nickel and cobalt used to form the silicide region in the
gate electrode.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013