Ex Parte Gilbert et al - Page 4

                 Appeal 2007-0378                                                                                   
                 Application 10/212,895                                                                             
                                                                                                                   
                 concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art                      
                 at the time of the invention to deposit the seed layer in Norga in the manner                      
                 suggested by Roeder to grow a bulk paraelectric layer of crystalline structure                     
                 for a capacitor (Answer 3-4).                                                                      
                       Appellants argue that Norga does not teach nor suggest using the                             
                 same paraelectric material precursor for the seed and paraelectric layers as                       
                 claimed.  Appellants contend that Norga teaches away from the claimed                              
                 invention since a seed layer of high-Ti PZT2 is deposited before the PZT                           
                 layer to prevent reactions with the bottom electrode; therefore, the same                          
                 precursor cannot be used (Br. 11).  Regarding claims 7, 10, 17, and 20,                            
                 Appellants add that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention,                         
                 particularly noting that Roeder deposits different precursor compositions                          
                 (Br. 12).                                                                                          
                       The Examiner notes that Norga’s PZT layer 35 comprises two sub-                              
                 layers: (1) a first PZT sub-layer with a higher Ti concentration that                              
                 corresponds to the claimed seed layer, and (2) a second PZT sub-layer that                         
                 corresponds to the claimed paraelectric layer (Answer 7, 13).  Appellants                          
                 respond that these two sub-layers do not constitute a seed layer and a                             
                 paraelectric layer as claimed, particularly in view of Norga’s teaching of                         
                 depositing a seed layer in ¶ 0063 (Reply Br. 3).                                                   
                       We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and                         
                 11.  At the outset, we note that although claim 1 requires using the same                          
                 paraelectric precursor for both the seed layer and the overlying paraelectric                      
                 layer as Appellants argue, the claim nonetheless does not preclude using                           
                                                                                                                   
                 2 PZT is an acronym for a lead zirconate titanate composition.  See Roeder,                        
                 col. 3, l. 26.                                                                                     
                                                         4                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013