Appeal No. 1999-1466
Application No. 08/371,486
assertion, or provided a convincing rationale as to why LeComber, taken with Matsumura,
would have rendered obvious the proposed modification.
Appellants further contend (Brief, page 9) that Madan is concerned with determining
the density of localized states in amorphous silicon, and is not directed to a thin film
transistor. As such, appellants argue that Madan would not have suggested applying a
nitride film in a thin film transistor structure as claimed.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 4-5), however, Madan shows field-
effect devices in Figures 1(a) and 1(b). “In these figures F is the gate electrode or
equivalently ‘field electrode’ and A and A are the source and drain regions, and there is a1 2
gate dielctric [sic; dielectric] of quartz or silicon nitride between the gate electrode and a-
Si semiconductor channel region.” (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5.) The
examiner’s findings are specifically disputed by appellants on pages 2 and 3 of the Reply
Brief. Appellants further argue in the Brief (page 9) and the Reply Brief (page 3) that
Madan’s reference to quartz (SiO ) or silicon nitride in place of thin soda glass would not
2
have suggested using silicon nitride in a device having the claimed junctions.
We find, consistent with appellants’ arguments, that the description of Figures 1(a)
and 1(b), on pages 241 and 242 of Madan, refers to “field electrode” F and to A , A as1 2
“surface electrodes for current measurement.” Absent additional evidence or a convincing
rationale from the examiner as to why the disclosure of Madan would be applicable to the
structures disclosed by Matsumura, including the source and drain regions with the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007