Appeal No. 2002-1330
Application No. 09/178,249
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”).
The appellants further argue that Radhakrishnan describes
cleaning a substrate prior to deposition of the dielectric layer
and does not relate to dielectric layer formation. (Appeal
brief, page 3.) According to the appellants (id.),
Radhakrishnan does not teach the use of a catalyst and “has no
suggestion of either a precursor layer or a catalyst.” Again,
the appellants incorrectly focus on the teachings of
Radhakrishnan alone rather than the collective teachings of both
prior art references. For this reason, the appellants’ argument
fails.
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claims 1, 2, and 6 as anticipated
by Smith; and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 5 as
unpatentable over Smith in view of Radhakrishnan.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007