Appeal No. 2002-1167
Application No. 09/089,445
The examiner relies upon Kotecki (col. 1, lines 64-66) for a
teaching that Ru and Ir, which are two of the appellants’ electrode
metals (specification, page 10, lines 20-26), and polysilicon,
which is the disclosed electrode material of Wu (col. 7, line 35),
are interchangeable as capacitor lower electrode materials (answer,
page 7).
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s argument
regarding the interchangeability of Ru, Ir and polysilicon as a
capacitor lower electrode material. Instead, the appellants’ rely
upon the same argument with respect to claim 23 as was relied upon
regarding claim 4 (brief, page 11). This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the
rejection of claim 4 over Wu in view of Zahurak. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection over Wu in view of Zahurak and Kotecki.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 4, 5 and 10-13
over Cho in view of Zahurak, claims 4, 5, 9-11, 13-15 and 36-39
over Wu in view of Zahurak, and claims 6-8, 16-18 and 21-35 over Wu
in view of Zahurak and Kotecki, are affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007