Ex parte SUNAMI et al. - Page 6

               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