Appeal No. 2000-0770
Application No. 08/631,638
review of the applied prior art in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s position as stated
in the Briefs.
It is our view that, while a showing of proper motivation
does not require that a combination of prior art teachings be
made for the same reason as Appellant to achieve the claimed
invention, we can find no motivation for the skilled artisan to
add Rostoker’s isolating layer to the capacitor structure of
Robbins. According to the disclosure of Rostoker, the removal
of the fullerene component from the low dielectric constant
insulating layer causes a porous structure to result. The
isolating or encapsulating layers are needed to protect against
the migration of impurities or dopants through the resulting
porous insulating layer to the surface of the dielectric and
causing an undesirable interaction with the conductive layers.
(Rostoker, column 6, lines 10-40). There is nothing in the
disclosure of Robbins to indicate that impurity or dopant
migration and the interaction of dielectric and electrode
materials, the problems addressed by Rostoker, were ever a
concern. It is our opinion that the only basis for applying the
teachings of Rostoker to the capacitor structure of Robbins
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007