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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007