Appeal No. 2003-1269
Application 09/041,913
Claims 19 and 22
The appellants’ claim 19 requires varying the reaction
chamber temperature and monitoring an initial growth pattern of
the material layer, and claim 22 requires cycling the reaction
chamber temperature following the varying. It reasonably appears
that Roy’s teaching that the nucleation layer must comprise a
relatively coherent and continuous film (col. 5, lines 38-39)
would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
initial growth pattern of the nucleation layer is to be
monitored.
The appellants’ only argument regarding claims 19 and 22 is
that neither Roy nor Parker teaches or suggests forming a
material layer while a temperature within a reaction chamber is
being varied (brief, page 17). As discussed above regarding the
rejection of claims 7 and 10, Roy discloses varying the
temperature as the polysilicon layer is being deposited.
Hence, we affirm the rejection of claims 19 and 22 over Roy
in view of Parker.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007