Appeal No. 2004-0657
Application No. 09/845,604
Under the circumstances discussed above, we hereby sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 as being anticipated
by Muller.
As for the § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 6, the Muller
reference evinces that the here claimed parameters of fin height
and gate material thickness are known in the prior art as being
result-effective variables. Therefore, like the Examiner, we
conclude that is would have been obvious for one having an ordinary
level of skill in this art to develop workable or even optimum
values for these parameters in practicing Muller’s fabrication
method. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934,
1936-37 (Fed. Cir, 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ
215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955).
In support of his nonobviousness position, the Appellant
argues that Muller’s device “is a factor of ten larger than the
Applicant’s disclosed invention” (reply brief, page 17). This is
incorrect. Patentee’s device is disclosed as being in the size
range of micrometers to nanometers (e.g., see the abstract), which
at least overlaps the size range contemplated by the Appellant
as reflected by the 150 nanometer and 600 nanometer dimensions
encompassed by rejected claims 4 and 6. The Appellant’s other
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007