Appeal No. 2000-1642
Application No. 08/104,264
the disclosures of the applied references did not support the teachings attributed to
them by the rejection. We reach the same conclusion in this case.
The instant rejection relies on LeComber (and, secondarily, on Madan) for
suggestion of a gate insulating film that comprises a nitride. The rejection relies on
Matsumura for the general teaching related to the claimed source, drain, and channel
regions. However, Matsumura, as appellants note (Brief at 11), teaches silicon oxide
gate insulating films.
Appellants argue that the transistor of LeComber utilizes a Schottky junction that
is “entirely different” from the transistor structure disclosed by Matsumura. Further,
appellants allege that LeComber does not discuss any advantages associated with the
use of a silicon nitride gate insulating layer so as to motivate the artisan to make the
combination that is contemplated by the rejection. (Brief at 13.) With regard to Madan,
appellants argue that the reference teaches that quartz or Si3N4 is superior to thin soda
glass, but discloses no advantages of silicon nitride with respect to silicon oxide. (Brief
at 10-11.)
The examiner responds that both silicon oxide and silicon nitride gate insulating
films in field effect transistor devices were well known at the time of invention, and that
their practice in thin film transistor devices would not have been unobvious. Further,
Madan is deemed as appearing to suggest that nitride is superior, or, in any event, the
teachings of LeComber and Madan show the obviousness of nitride as a gate insulating
film. (Answer at 5-6.)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007