Appeal No. 96-0859
Application No. 08/252,727
At the bottom of page 4 of the answer, in discussing
instant claim 14, the examiner appears to indicate that the
oxide dielectrics of the prior art are being equated to the
claimed “oxygen source material.” However, merely because
oxide compounds have oxygen as a component thereof, this does
not make such compounds “oxygen source material,” as claimed
and as specifically defined in the specification. Moreover,
with regard to claim 14, even if the applied references showed
an “oxygen source material, as defined in the instant
specification,” used as the dielectric, which it does not,
claim 14 requires the “oxygen source material” to be “disposed
nearby” the capacitor and not to be part of the dielectric
since the dielectric is recited separately.
Accordingly, since the examiner failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness, taking all claim limitations into
account, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007