Appeal No. 1997-4035 Application No. 08/274,475 overlap is insufficient to constitute being "on" the interlayer insulating layer. Accordingly, Konishi does not meet all of the limitations of the independent claims. We note that the rejection also relies upon Blake. However, Blake does not relate to hydrogenation and does not teach forming a cap layer on an interlayer insulating layer. Thus, the examiner cited Blake merely for the material of the source and drain electrodes. Consequently, Blake does not cure the deficiencies of Konishi. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 24. CONCLUSION The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007