Ex Parte Hayashi et al - Page 5

                 Appeal 2007-0665                                                                                    
                 Application 09/772,986                                                                              
                 obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings                      
                 directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court                        
                 can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of                              
                 ordinary skill in the art would employ.”  KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127                       
                 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441                             
                 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).                                              

                                                       ANALYSIS                                                      
                                            35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION                                             
                        In addressing the language of independent claims 1 and 5, the                                
                 Examiner finds that Hisao discloses a thin film semiconductor device having                         
                 an upper layer gate electrode with a thickness of about 50-300 nm and a                             
                 lower gate electrode with a thickness of 50-200 nm.  According to the                               
                 Examiner (Answer 3), Hisao’s two gate layers taken together have a                                  
                 combined thickness of about 100-500 nm allowing for a lower limit value of                          
                 slightly above or less than 100 nm, thereby meeting the claimed                                     
                 requirements.                                                                                       
                 Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not                                  
                 shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Hisao                        
                 so as to establish a case of anticipation.  Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7; Reply                     
                 Br. 3) focus on the contention that the 100nm lower limit of Hisao’s gate                           
                 electrode thickness range does not satisfy the requirements of claims 1 and 5                       
                 which require a gate thickness of less than 100 nm.                                                 
                        After reviewing the disclosure of Hisao in light of the arguments of                         
                 record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in                          
                 the Briefs.  Our interpretation of the disclosure of Hisao coincides with that                      

                                                         5                                                           

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013