Appeal No. 2001-1697 Page 4
Application No. 09/059,718
aforementioned rejections. The reasons for our determination
follow.
In the rejections stated in the answer, the examiner has
identified either Yamasaki or Kakoschke as the closest prior art
reference. Appellants have pointed out that, among other things,
Yamasaki and Kakoschke each do not teach or suggest the use of
steam and a halogen compound together with nitrous oxide and
ozone in a gaseous mixture for treating a heated silicon-
containing surface of a silicon layer to form a dielectric film
containing silicon dioxide and silicon nitride as recited in the
appealed claims (see, e.g., appeal brief, page 18).
To remedy that acknowledged deficiency of either Yamasaki or
Kakoschke (answer, pages 3-7), the examiner has relied upon
Fujishiro. According to the examiner, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to include HCl and water in the gaseous oxidizing mixture of
either Yamasaki or Kakoschke to enhance the oxidation rate of the
silicon layer in either Yamasaki or Kakoschke as taught by
Fujishiro at column 5, lines 20-27 thereof.
We cannot agree.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner carries the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007