Ex Parte GILBERT et al - Page 2




               Appeal No.  2001-2107                                                                                                 
               Application No. 09/349,439                                                                                            


                       Claim 13 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:                                   
                       13.  A method of forming dielectric layers, comprising the action of depositing a thin film of                
               a dielectric material with an anisotropic ferroelectric polarization onto a surface from the vapor                    
               phase, while applying an RF bias to said surface during a first portion of said depositing and                        
               removing said RF bias during a second portion of said depositing.                                                     
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                 
               Lampe et al. (Lampe)                           5,146,299                              Sept.  8, 1992                  
               Anderson et al. (Anderson)                     5,390,072                              Feb. 14, 1995                   
               Paz de Araujo et al. (Paz de Araujo)           5,519,234                              May 21, 1996                    
               Drab et al. (Drab)                             5,638,252                              June 10, 1997                   
               Wolf et al. (Wolf), Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era, Lattice Press, Vol. 1, page 174 (1990).                      
                       Claims 13, 14, 17 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                   
               Lampe in view of Wolf.                                                                                                
                       Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lampe                     
               in view of Wolf and Anderson.                                                                                         
                       Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lampe                     
               in view of Wolf and Drab.                                                                                             
                       Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lampe in                         
               view of Wolf and Paz de Araujo.                                                                                       
                       Reference is made to the brief (paper number 7) and the answer (paper number 8) for the                       
               respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                                                              




                                                                 2                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007