Appeal No. 1998-2951
Application No. 08/675,692
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse
the obviousness rejection of claims 28, 29, and 31 through 38.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that the combination of
Gonzalez and Tanaka fails to suggest all of the claimed limitations.
We agree.1
More specifically, independent claims 28 and 29 recite that the
tungsten has recessed and elevated portions. In Tanaka, it is the
polysilicon that forms such irregularities. The examiner states
(Answer, page 8) that "[t]he mere fact that . . . [Tanaka] discloses
texturizing a lower plate electrode of a capacitor cell is sufficient
to teach modifying lower plate electrodes of capacitor cells, whether
or not they are made from tungsten." We agree with the examiner that
the teachings of a reference are not limited to the explicit
disclosure but rather extend to the inferences that can be drawn
therefrom. We also agree that Tanaka suggests that roughening the
top surface of a capacitor's bottom electrode (and not merely
1 Although the examiner combines Kashihara with Tanaka and Gonzalez for
all of the claims, Kashihara is applied solely to show particular dielectric
materials and adds nothing regarding the limitations lacking from Tanaka and
Gonzalez. Therefore, we will limit our discussion to Tanaka and Gonzalez.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007