Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
silicon-rich nitride liner of Park via a plasma enhanced chemical
vapor disposition process in view of Wolf’s clear teaching that
such a process was known in the prior art as an advantageous, low-
temperature technique by which to deposit a silicon nitride layer
(e.g., see the last full paragraph on page 171, the last paragraph
on page 191, and the paragraph bridging pages 192-193).
However, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s corresponding
§ 103 rejection of claims 4 and 10. This is because we find
nothing and the Examiner points to nothing in Wolf or in the other
applied references which would have suggested depositing the
silicon-rich nitride liner of Park in a non-biased manner as
required by these claims. In this regard, we observe that the
first full sentence on page 7 of the answer indicates that the
Examiner has ignored the “non-biased” limitation of claims 4 and
10. This is completely inappropriate. In formulating a § 103
rejection, all claim limitations must be considered (regardless of
whether or not they are supported by the specification). See In re
Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) and
Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. App. 1983).
Finally, the § 103 rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable
over Park in view of Yew and Vossen and further in view of Fukumoto
likewise will be sustained. As properly concluded by the Examiner,
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007