Appeal No. 2004-2049
Application No. 10/158,467
depositing an oxide layer on the high-k
dielectric layer; and
densifying the deposited oxide layer and the
grown oxide layer in an oxidizing atmosphere, thereby
removing traps in the grown oxide layer and the
deposited oxide layer.
4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the
perovskite material is of the form MTiO3, where M is
selected from the group consisting of Sr, Ba, La, Ti,
Pb, BaxSr1-x, and PbxLa1-x.
9. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the
deposited oxide layer is deposited in a LPCVD reactor.
On page 5 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
stand or fall together. We select, therefore, claims 1, 4, and
9 (from each respective rejection), for our consideration in
this appeal.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoon.
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Shindo.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable of Yoon in view of
Yamazaki.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Yoon et al (Yoon) 5,668,724 November 1997
Shindo et al (Shindo) 5,738,731 April 1998
Yamazaki et al. (Yamazaki) 6,168,980 January 2001
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007