Appeal No. 1996-2246
Application No. 08/052,910
instead of a polysilicon film in the fabrication of a
semiconductor device. The fact that Ueno lacks a teaching of
selective etching of undoped silicon or the use of a silicon
layer as an etch stop is irrelevant since these features are
clearly provided by other references in the Examiner’s
proposed combination.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
independent claim 1 remains unrebutted by any convincing
arguments offered by Appellants. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained. Since, as
noted above, Appellants have grouped claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-10
as standing or falling together, claims 2, 6, and 8-10 fall
with claim 1 in accordance with 37 37 CFR § § 1.192(c)(7).
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 2, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also sustained.
Turning now to a consideration of dependent claim 7,
grouped and argued separately by Appellants, we note that,
while we found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with
respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-
10, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 7.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007