Appeal No. 2004-2049
Application No. 10/158,467
that would have motivated one skilled in the art to substitute
the Ta2O5 of Yoon with the perovskite taught in Shindo.
Brief, page 8. We disagree for the following reasons.
As pointed out on page 8 of the answer by the examiner,
Yoon teaches that the high-K dielectric can be Ta2O5 or other
high-K dielectric material. The examiner states that Yoon is
silent as to the high-K dielectric material being a perovskite
type dielectric material. The examiner relies upon Shindo for
teaching that it is known in the art that the type of perovskite
material as claimed in claim 4 is a known alternative to Ta2O5.
Shindo does indicate that these materials have each been used in
this art as a dielectric material. See column 17, lines 3-23,
column 134, lines 46-59, and column 124 of Shindo, lines 16-23.
Appellants argue that the perovskites in Shindo have
particular characteristics that would discourage one skilled in
the art from substituting Ta2O5 for the perovskites (appellants
refer to column 124 of Shindo, lines 16-23). However, as held
in the case of In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d
1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994), a known or obvious material does
not become patentable simply because the art described it as
somewhat inferior. In the instant case, we determine that the
skilled artisan would not have been dissuaded from using
perovskites as the dielectric material in the device of Yoon.
Shindo discusses using films having a high dieletric constant.
See column 17, lines 3-23. Shindo uses perovskites in making
DRAM devices, which are the same devices made in Yoon.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 4 and 15.
III. The rejection of claims 9, 10, 11, and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Yoon in view Yamazaki
We consider claim 9 in this rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007