Appeal No. 2004-0652
Application No. 09/396,642
In neither case, however, is the ozone formed over the subject
silicon wafer.1
As explained above, Nishioka meets the temperature
limitation in dependent claim 7. We shall therefore sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 7 as being
unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Wong, with the examiner’s
application of Wong here being harmless surplusage.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6 and 8 which depend from claim
1. The examiner has not cogently explained, and it is not
apparent, how or why the combined teachings of Nishioka and Wong
would have suggested performing Nishioka’s annealing and
oxidation step with an ozone-containing atmosphere formed over
the electrically conductive structure and the electrically
insulative layer as recited in claim 3, for more than 20 minutes
but less than 70 minutes as recited in claim 6, or at a
temperature around 400 to 500C as recited in claim 8.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should
consider whether Nishioka, taken in combination with Wong’s
teaching of forming ozone at a location remote from where it is
intended to be used, would have suggested the subject matter
recited in claim 4, thereby warranting a § 103(a) rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007