Appeal No. 2000-0769
Application 08/997,326
Si Ge alloy and a gate....might result in superior poly-
1-xx
Si Ge alloy TFT..." which is not novel as taught by
1-xx
Solomon and/or Burghartz.
As to the first sentence, that the specification does not
disclose the critical nature of the polycrystalline layer or
any unexpected results, we find that the specification clearly
discusses why poly-SiGe is an improvement over poly-Si. The
specification need not discuss pseudomorphic SiGe. The
Examiner cannot disregard the poly-SiGe limitation.
The second sentence presents an interesting observation.
As admitted by counsel at the oral hearing, the specification
nowhere describes the purpose or advantage of applying a
silicon layer to the poly-SiGe alloy layer of the prior art.
Thus, Appellants are not in a good position to argue that the
Examiner's reasons based on silicon over a pseudomorphic SiGe
layer are wrong because Appellants cannot show that some other
problem was being solved. It appears that any suggestion for
adding a silicon channel layer to a poly-SiGe alloy layer
would be sufficient motivation. Nevertheless, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner's reasons, based on a silicon
channel layer on a pseudomorphic SiGe layer, are persuasive of
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007