Appeal No. 1997-1808 Page 6
Application No. 08/172,101
Specification (Brief, page 14). However, this disclosed advantage does not reasonably convey that
Appellants were in possession of the broader concept of using any insulating film on a conducting film
and forming a second film of any composition over the insulating film. The conclusion does not follow
because the protective function of silicon dioxide film does not flow from the insulating property of the
silicon dioxide but from the fact that silicon dioxide is more than ten times harder than poly-Si
(Specification, page 21). For the purpose of protecting the underlying poly-Si layer, the insulating
property is of little consequence. It is the hardness property which prevents etching through to the
underlying poly-Si layer.
Appellants argue that their “description of specific materials, together with a description of the
function of these materials in the processing, would convey to one skilled in the art the knowledge that
appellants invented a method of fabricating a semiconductor device ... as claimed.” (Reply Brief, pages
2 and 3). However, the description of materials is limited to poly-Si and silicon dioxide. Appellants
cite no language in the Specification which indicates that other materials were contemplated. In
addition, as explained above, the description of the function of the materials does not convey that
Appellants were in possession of the concept of substituting other conductive materials for the poly-Si
and other insulating materials for the silicon dioxide.
Appellants look to Figure 19 and pages 18 to 21, particularly, page 19, line 22 to page 21, line
6 in combination with Figure 19 of the original disclosure for support of the broader claim language.
This is the same portion of the Specification describing the polysilicon and silicon dioxide process which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007