Appeal No. 97-3917
Application 08/467,650
electrode being formed of a material having a barrier
property,
said capacitor dielectric film being in contact with the
upper surface and side surface of said first-layer electrode
an being spaced out from the side surface of said second-layer
electrode.
Opinion
Our opinion is based solely on the arguments raised by
the appellant in his briefs. We do not address and offer no
opinion on arguments which could have been raised but were not
set forth in the briefs.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 over prior art.
The appellant has grouped all claims 1-18 together for
single treatment (Br. at 5). We will discuss claim 1.
As noted above, Anand was relied on by the examiner only
to show specific materials well known for forming the
capacitor. Claim 1 does not require any specific material.
Therefore, we will discuss the rejection based on the admitted
prior art, Takahashi, Torii and Koyama. The discussion would
be equally applicable to the rejection based on the admitted
prior art, Takahashi, Torii, Koyama and Anand.
The distinction of the claimed invention over the
admitted prior art of Figures 5 and 6 is that the second-layer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007