Appeal No. 1997-2026
Application 08/317,108
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of Appellants’ application, would have enabled
a person of such skill to make and use Appellants’ invention
without undue experimentation. The threshold step in
resolving this issue is to determine whether the Examiner has
met his burden of proof by advancing acceptable reasoning to
support the alleged lack of enablement.
The Examiner has alleged that Appellants’ recited steps
in claim 24 do not describe the formation of the
microelectronic capacitor recited in the preamble of the
claim. Appellants argue [brief, page 4] that the invention
“encompasses a method for forming a structure on an (sic)
semiconductor substrate which is a part of an integrated
circuit.” Appellants further argue [id.] that “those skilled
in the art recognize that a semiconductor substrate is the
basic foundation for integrated circuits.” Appellants also
point to portions of the specification where capacitors are
disclosed to be formed in a semiconductor environment using
the substrate as the foundation.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007