Appeal No. 1997-1319
Application 08/290,227
Since the examiner’s analysis completely
mischaracterizes the teachings of Guckel, the rationale
proposed by the examiner for combining the teachings of Chiang
with Guckel is without basis. In fact, we agree with
appellants that the fine grain crystals of Guckel are
inconsistent with Chiang’s desire to create large grain
crystals. Therefore, there would be no motivation to combine
the teachings of Chiang with those of Guckel. It should be
noted that neither of the Cederbaum references overcomes the
error in the examiner’s combination of Guckel and Chiang.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-9, 11-15, 21-24, 26 and 27 based upon
the teachings of Guckel and Chiang or the collective teachings
of Guckel, Chiang and the Cederbaum references.
In view of the examiner’s mischaracterization of the
teachings of Guckel, we feel compelled to make some
observations about the patentability of the appealed claims
based on the teachings of Chiang taken alone. Chiang clearly
teaches the steps of depositing an amorphous silicon film onto
a substrate and annealing the film to create large grain
crystals. Appellants have argued that Chiang uses an ion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007