Appeal No. 1998-0765
Application No. 08/451,853
The examiner rejects claims 16 to 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28,
and 32 to 36 under this combination. The examiner asserts,
answer at page 5 that “it would have been obvious . . . to
have modified Kaiser et al. . . . process with McSweeney . . .
compositions because the ferroelectric materials utilized in
both disclosures are equivalent and the substitution of these
equivalent materials for each other would have been
anticipated to produce an expected result.” The examiner
further asserts, id. at 6 that, “[s]ince the materials are
identical, it is the examiner’s position that Kaiser et al.’s
. . . electrode functions equivalently to that of the instant
application’s buffer layer and the mere difference in
terminology describing the layer underneath the lanthanum
doped barium strontium titanate layer does not make the claims
patentably distinct.”
Appellants argue, brief at page 6, that,
[t]he examiner argues that similar materials are
equivalent even if the properties are modified from
non-conductive to conductive. The Kaiser patent is
directed toward dielectric layers using perovskite
material. In contrast, Applicant uses similar
perovskite materials for a conductive electrode to a
dielectric. Thus, there is a difference in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007