Appeal No. 1998-0129 Page 28
Application No. 08/438,062
1-10) a diffusion barrier layer 16 along with high dielectric
constant material (PZT or PLZT). In addition, Koyama
recognized (page 32.1.1, col. 1) the need for high dielectric
constant, low leakage current and reliability for voltage
stress.
Appellants assert (brief, page 14) that “[i]t is
irrelevant that the Examiner argues the substitution of the
BST for the Miller et al. PZT would inherently have this high
capacitance response, because the Examiner has not shown that
those skilled in the art knew, at the time of the invention,
that the BST could provide the claimed high frequency
capacitance.” Appellants further assert (reply brief, pages 5
and 6) that neither McMillan nor Koyama recognized that BST
may be substituted for PZT to obtain stable capacitance at
high frequencies.
As we stated, supra, as long as some motivation or
suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior
art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 16 USPQ2d at
1901, and In re Beattie, 974 F.2d at 1312, 24 USPQ2d at 1042.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007