Appeal No. 2003-1269
Application 09/041,913
combination of a temperature increase and a temperature decrease,
and the examiner has not established that Lee would have fairly
suggested such a combination to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claim 7 over Lee in
view of Parker.
Claims 20 and 21
Claims 20 and 21, which depend from claim 19, require,
respectively, that the temperature and the rate of varying are
altered in response to the monitoring of the initial growth
pattern of the material layer.
The examiner argues, regarding claim 20, that “Lee teaches
altering an overall temperature trend from a first phase (lower
temperature limit) to a second phase (upper temperature limit)
(col. 5, lines 44-50)” (answer, page 10). The examiner, however,
has not established that the altering is in response to
monitoring of the initial growth pattern of the polysilicon. The
examiner provides no argument regarding claim 21.
We therefore reverse the rejection over Lee in view of
Parker of claims 20 and 21.
Rejection over Roy in view of Parker and Lee
The appellants’ claims 11 and 12, which depend from
claim 10, require, respectively, oscillating during a heat-up
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007