Appeal No. 1998-0129 Page 17
Application No. 08/438,062
Turning now to the rejection of claim 4, we find that the
claim recites that the barium strontium titanate dielectric
material has the specific formula Ba Sr TiO . The examiner‘s
0.7 0.3 3
position (answer, page 6) is that McMillan teaches the claimed
formula and that it would have been obvious to have replaced
the PZT layer of Miller with the Ba Sr TiO of McMillan to
0.7 0.3 3
provide a high dielectric constant. The examiner also takes
the position (answer, pages 7 and 8) that Koyama shows the
general formula Ba Sr TiO , and that the specific formula
x 1-x 3
Ba Sr TiO would have been a discovery of an optimum result
0.70.3 3
of a result effective variable, involving only routine skill
in the art.
Appellants’assert (brief, page 10) that “[s]ome BST
formulations are both ferroelectric and high dielectric
materials, but the preferred formulation Ba Sr TiO , is not
0.7 0.3 3
ferromagnetic at normal integrated circuit operating
temperatures.” Appellants further assert (brief, page 14)
that [t]his is quite different from the Miller et al. device,
which teaches a PZT or PLZT ferroelectric layer 30.”
We find that Koyama does not teach Ba Sr TiO as claimed,
0.7 0.3 3
but rather teaches Ba Sr TiO . In view of appellants’
0.5 0.5 3
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007