Appeal No. 2006-1333
Application No. 10/347,849
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations are present in
the disclosure of Venkatesan, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent
claim 24, as well as dependent claim 25 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims
26-32 in which the Examiner has added Sato to Venkatesan to address the particular
deposition process parameter features of those claims. We find no error in the Examiner’s
line of reasoning as set forth at pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. Further, Appellants have
made no separate arguments for patentability with respect to these claims and have
instead chosen (Brief, page 4) to let these claims stand or fall with independent claim 24.
Lastly, we make the observation that, although the Examiner has made a 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 anticipation rejection of independent claim 24, it is apparent from our reading of
Venkatesan that a 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness rejection could also have been made.
Venkatesan, in recognition of the often competing characteristics of high deposition rates
and good step coverage in silicon deposition processes, particularly as related to high
aspect ratio openings, describes an invention which is directed to the optimization of the
deposition process parameters. As stated at column 2, lines 41-44 of Venkatesan, “[t]he
process of the present invention can be used to form an amorphous silicon and polysilicon
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007