Appeal No. 2000-0366
Application No. 08/477,957
not show that ordinary artisans consider doped silicon to be an
art-recognized equivalent to the claimed ‘conductive donor doped
perovskite layer’, obviousness has not been shown.” Furthermore,
Appellants advocate (id.) along the same lines that
[a]s discussed above, Miyasaka ‘917's electrode
layer 22 is preferably formed from doped silicon.
McSweeney ‘295 teaches “[i]t is also known to modify
strontium titanate used in making grain boundary
barrier layer capacitors by doping the ceramic
material with lanthanide series rare earths. The
lanthanum acts as a donor dopant to render the
strontium titanate semiconductive.” As the DECISION
ON APPEAL does not show that ordinary artisans would
understand that McSweeney ‘295's prior art method of
doping strontium titanate would work with Miyasaka
‘917's silicon layer, obviousness has not been
shown.
We disagree with Appellants’ position. Appellants have given
a narrow construction to the Kaiser, Miyasaka and McSweeney
references. Specifically, as we pointed out in our decision (page
7), Miyasaka clearly teaches at column 3, lines 50-53 that “a
substrate doped with an impurity may be preferably employed [for
the first electrode (22)].” Thus, the teaching of Miyasaka is
not restricted to just the doped silicon but is applicable to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007