Appeal 2007-2101
Application 10/859,552
Regarding Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not identified
any source of motivation for modifying the disclosure of Maex to arrive at
Appellants’ claimed invention (Br. 5 and 6), the Examiner has provided
motivation directly from the references. Specifically, the Examiner stated
that it would have been obvious to use a cap layer as taught by either Yu or
Wieczorek in Maex’s siliciding process “to independently optimize the
silicide thicknesses of the gate and source/drain regions” (Answer 4). The
Examiner further states that Yu and Wieczorek provide motivation for using
a cap layer and separate siliciding steps in the gate electrode and in the
source and drain regions to produce a relatively thick gate silicide having a
lower gate resistance, and an increased switching speed, while also
producing a relatively shallow source/drain silicide that minimizes unwanted
short channel effects (Answer 4).
The Examiner’s motivation for the combination of Yu’s or
Wieczorek’s cap and separate siliciding steps with Maex’s method of
forming a nickel/cobalt silicide layers on transistor gates is taken directly
from the Wieczorek and Yu disclosures (Wieczorek, col. 7, ll. 16-27; Yu,
col. 8, ll. 19-22, 44-61). In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357-58, 47 USPQ2d
1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s
motivation for the combination of Maex in view of Yu or Wieczorek.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument regarding lack of motivation for the
combination of Maex in view of Yu or Wieczorek is not persuasive.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 18-22 over Maex in view Yu or Wieczorek.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013