Appeal No. 95-2914 Page 6
Application No. 07/447,969
noted by appellants (brief, page 13), Holmberg I suggests
lowering the resistivity of the amorphous silicon via doping
rather than furnishing any suggestion of using a method of
raising the resistivity to levels sufficient to obtain the
claimed low leakage current method of fabrication.
Furthermore, we agree with appellants that the examiner has
not adequately explained how the deficiency of the primary
references is overcome by the applied alternative secondary
references.
In our view, the examiner has not satisfactorily
explained how the combined teachings of the applied Holmberg I
or II taken with any of Ovshinsky I or II, or Kanai would have
suggested or led a skilled artisan to arrive at the process
required by all of the appealed claims including the step of
plasma enhanced chemical vapor depositing an amorphous silicon
film under conditions selected to yield an interconnect
structure with a leakage current below 10 nanoamperes at 5.5
volts at the location of the amorphous silicon deposit. The
Cook reference as additionally applied to claims 9, 10, 29-31,
36 and 39 does not cure this deficiency. Having carefully
considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007