Ex parte IWANAGA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-4035                                                            
          Application No. 08/274,475                                                      


               Appellants' invention relates to a thin film                               
          semiconductor device having a hygroscopic interlayer                            
          insulating layer on the                                                         
          active region and a cap layer on the hygroscopic layer for                      
          blocking hydrogen diffusion.  Claim 24 is illustrative of the                   
          claimed invention, and it reads as follows:                                     
               24. A thin film semiconductor device comprising:                           
               an insulating substrate;                                                   
               a thin film transistor formed on the insulation substrate                  
          having an active region;                                                        
               a hygroscopic interlayer insulating layer formed on the                    
          active region; and a cap layer substantially impermeable to                     
          hydrogen formed on the interlayer insulating layer.                             
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                      
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                  
          Blake                           4,906,587                 Mar. 06,              
          1990                                                                            
          Konishi et al. (Konishi)             4,943,837                  Jul.            
          24, 1990                                                                        
               Claims 1 through 11 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Blake.                      
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,                  
          mailed May 30, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                   
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.                  
                                            2                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007