Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
19, filed May 5, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21, filed
August 4, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
11 and 24.
The only issue in this case is whether Konishi's aluminum
source and drain electrodes, 20 and 30, respectively, meet the
claimed cap layer. There are only two independent claims, 1
and 24, each of which requires that the cap layer be formed on
the hygroscopic interlayer insulating layer. Further, the cap
layer is "for blocking hydrogen diffusion" (for claim 1) or is
"substantially impermeable to hydrogen" (for claim 24).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007