Appeal No. 2005-1894
Application No. 10/209,004
an electrode and a barrier layer, and reduced degradation of the
barrier layer compared to the prior art device (col. 2, lines 33-
38), but he does not disclose that the prior art device is not
functional. Hence, Sandhu and Hosaka would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the use of
Hosaka’s method when making the prior art device disclosed by
Sandhu to improve the prior art device in the manner taught by
Hosaka, i.e., to remove surface roughness and distortions in the
lower electrode (1) and round the corner portions of the lower
electrode’s side surface to prevent degradation of the quality of
the thin insulating film formed on the lower electrode and to
obtain good electrical characteristics (page 3).
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 8 and claim 11
that stands or falls therewith.
DECISION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007