Appeal No. 2003-1269
Application 09/041,913
For the above reasons we affirm the rejection of claims 7,
10, 13 and 14 over Roy in view of Parker.2
Claims 15-18
Roy discloses formation of a nucleation layer that comprises
a relatively coherent and continuous film so that subsequent
polysilicon growth during the oscillatory growth period will
occur on a nearly continuous sheet of nucleation centers rather
than on more isolated, energetically favored, discrete sites
(col. 5, lines 38-43), and discloses that perturbations in the
deposition during the oscillatory growth period can be effected
by changing the amplitude and frequency of the oscillation
(col. 5, lines 60-62). Hence, the appellants’ arguments that Roy
does not disclose altering the frequency or magnitude of the
oscillating, and does not disclose optimizing a magnitude of the
oscillating in response to an initial growth pattern to enhance
uniformity of a property (i.e., stress) of the polysilicon layer
(brief, pages 15-16), are not well taken.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 15-18 over Roy
in view of Parker.
2
2 A discussion of Parker is not necessary to our decision.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007