Appeal No. 2000-0769
Application 08/997,326
than a polycrystalline, or multicrystal lattice (SBr6). It is
stated that pseudomorphic layers contain a lattice that is
mismatched with respect to the substrate, forming a strained
layer which effect changes the lattice constant, and, by
contrast, a polycrystalline layer is not necessarily strained
(Br5). Also, pseudomorphic and polycrystalline layers are
typically formed by different methods (Br6). Appellants argue
that the pseudomorphic SiGe layer of Solomon has a different
structure and different operating characteristics than the
claimed polycrystalline SiGe layer and, thus, it would not
have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Solomon into
King (SBr6) because processes appropriate for a pseudomorphic
SiGe layer are not necessarily appropriate for a
polycrystalline SiGe layer (SBr7). More particularly, it is
argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
looked to Solomon to improve the operation of the King device
because King and Solomon are not readily combinable due to the
different characteristics between polycrystalline SiGe and
pseudomorphic SiGe (SBr6-7). That is, there is no motivation
to combine the teachings of Solomon and King (SBr6; RBr3).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007