Appeal No. 2000-0769
Application 08/997,326
material would provide the same results. There must be both a
suggestion for the modification and a reasonable expectation
of success. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493,
20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, because the
advantageous results of silicon on a pseudomorphic SiGe layer
are based on the properties of the pseudomorphic SiGe layer,
we find no motivation in Solomon for applying silicon to a
poly-SiGe layer or a reasonable expectation that doing so has
a reasonable expectation of success. The Burghartz patent,
although not technically part of the rejection, refers to the
Solomon patent and appears to disclose no more than Solomon.
Thus, Burghartz does not cure the deficiencies of the
combination. Ohtani is relied on only for a teaching of
excimer laser annealing and does not cure the deficiencies of
the combination of Solomon and King. We conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish the motivation to add a
silicon channel layer to a poly-SiGe ally layer in King and,
thus, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 8 and 10-21 is reversed.
Citation of relevant reference
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007