Appeal No. 2000-0770
Application No. 08/631,638
independent claims 1 and 14. Each of claims 1 and 14 requires a
capacitor structure with a dielectric material having a
dielectric constant “... of at least about 10.” We find no
disclosure in either Robbins or Rostoker of the use of any
material, and the Examiner has pointed to none, that would
result in a dielectric with the required dielectric constant.
Accordingly, since the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the rejection of independent claims
1, and 14, as well as claims 2-13, 15-24, and 46 dependent
thereon, over the combination of Robbins and Rostoker is not
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of independent claim 25 and its dependent claims
26-35 and 47, we do not sustain this rejection as well. As
recognized by both Appellant and the Examiner, independent claim
25, in contrast to claims 1 and 14 discussed supra, does not
recite the presence of electrodes. As asserted by Appellant
(Reply Brief, page 2), however, contrary to the Examiner’s
contention at page 9 of the Answer that only a “high dielectric
material” is recited in the claim, it is apparent from a reading
of the language of claim 25 that there is a specific recitation
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007