Appeal No. 1997-1319
Application 08/290,227
With respect to representative, independent claim 26,
the examiner cites Guckel as teaching the deposition of a
small grain film to be annealed. Chiang is cited as teaching
the crystallization of an amorphous silicon film. The
examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to deposit a film of amorphous silicon as taught by
Chiang without nucleation sites as taught by Guckel [rejection
mailed April 3, 1995].
Appellants argue that the polysilicon film of Guckel
is a fine grain film which is laden with nucleation sites.
Inventor Fonash has filed two declarations in support of this
contention. Appellants also argue that although Chiang
teaches annealing an amorphous silicon film, Chiang uses ion
implantation during the annealing process, which is contrary
to the invention of the pending claims. Appellants also argue
that the conductivity results recited in the pending claims
are not achieved by the thin films of either Guckel or Chiang
[brief, pages 6-16].
The linchpin of the examiner’s position is that
notwithstanding appellants’ arguments or the Fonash
declarations, Guckel clearly teaches “avoiding nucleation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007