Appeal No. 1999-2712 Page 7
Application No. 08/165,082
are reported in the Brandmayr et al. ‘829 reference cannot be used to form the claimed IC film because
the process conditions are inherently destructive of IC components.”
The examiner’s position (answer, page 6) is that “no claims on appeal recite anything at all
about how the device is to be made.” While the examiner is correct that the claims are drawn to a
product and not a method of manufacture, the issue remains as to whether one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to have provided Koyama with a grain size of less than 200 nanometers
in view of the teachings of Brandmayr. From our review of Brandmayr, we are in agreement with
appellants (brief, page 9) that Brandmayr is directed toward bulk ceramic capacitors. We find that
Brandmayr is not directed to a capacitor in an integrated circuit.
The examiner asserts (answer, page 6) that “if one of ordinary skill in the art were to attempt to
apply the Brandmayr process to the device structure as disclosed by Koyama et al., there would
certainly be no reason why this could not been done” [italics original]. Appellants assert (brief, page
11) that “Example 3 of Brandmayr et al. ‘829, describes BST ceramic materials that have been
subjected to 1100EC and 10,000 to 30,000 psi for one hour. These process conditions are unsuited
for IC processes.” Appellants additionally note (reply brief, page 4) that the process of Brandmayr
uses an inert atmosphere of He or Ar, whereas the integrated circuit anneal requires oxygen for
oxidation of the metal-containing precursor residue on the substrate. Appellants have provided a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007