Appeal 2007-0378
Application 10/212,895
record to rebut this position. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is
therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12-14, Appellants argue that the claimed
pressure and temperature ranges are critical to achieve the unexpected result
of forming an upper electrode in contact with the paraelectric layer (Br. 15).
The Examiner argues that (1) the pressure and temperature ranges in Kim
are within the claimed ranges, and (2) the claimed ranges involve routine
optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Answer 12).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 and 12-14. As
the Examiner indicates, Kim teaches depositing the PZT layer via CVD
methods with a chamber pressure of 0.1-10 Torr – a range that completely
encompasses the claimed pressure range (Kim, col. 7, ll. 30-37). Moreover,
Kim discloses a deposition temperature of 450-800°C – a temperature range
that overlaps the claimed temperature range (Id.).
A prima facie case of obviousness arises when claimed ranges overlap
the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341, 74
USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Where the claimed ranges are
completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion that the claims are
prima facie obvious is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap.
Even without complete overlap of the claimed range and the prior art range,
a minor difference shows a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); see also MPEP § 2144.05.
Although Appellants contend that both the pressure and temperature
ranges are critical to achieve the unexpected result of forming an upper
electrode in contact with the paraelectric layer, Appellants have simply not
rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness on this record.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013