Appeal No. 2001-1545
Application No. 09/199,666
convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to form the single layer of gate dielectric as
multiple layers of dielectric. The examiner provides various rationales of using plural
dielectric layers at pages 4-5 of the answer, but provides no teaching or suggestion in
the prior art applied. Additionally, the examiner maintains that the combination of layers
comprising silicon oxide and silicon nitride, “is an art recognized equivalent to a
conventional gate dielectric layer such as single layers of silicon oxide, silicon nitride,
silicon oxynitride etc.” (See answer at page 5.) The examiner and Board may not,
because of doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis fo the
rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Here, the examiner has provided no evidence of
the asserted equivalence, and we will not speculate whether the equivalence is well
founded in the relevant prior art. The examiner maintains that the language of Chau
suggest multiple layers to be used in place of the oxynitride gate dielectric layer and
argues that grammar dictated the language used in the recitations in Chau. (See
answer at page 7.) We are not persuaded by the examiner’s arguments and find that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007