Appeal No. 2004-2049
Application No. 10/158,467
We refer to page 5 of the answer regarding the examiner’s
position in this rejection. On pages 9-10 of the brief,
appellants present the arguments regarding this rejection.
On page 10 of the brief, appellants argue that Yamazaki’s
teaching of depositing a silicon dioxide layer in a LPCVD
reactor is different from a teaching regarding a strain reducing
oxide layer on an oxidizable surface in a dry oxidizing
atmosphere.
It appears appellants are arguing a limitation that is not
set forth in claim 9, as pointed out by the examiner on page 9
of the answer. That is, claim 9 requires the method as recited
in claim 5 (which depends upon claim 1) wherein the deposited
oxide layer is deposited in a LPCVD reactor, not the strain
reducing oxide layer. Hence, it is the deposited oxide layer at
issue. That is, claim 1 recites growing a strain reducing oxide
layer, and then depositing a high-K dielectric layer on the
grown layer, and then depositing an oxide layer on the high-K
dielectric layer, and then densifying that deposited oxide
layer. Hence, it appears that appellants’ arguments are not
directed to the claimed invention. We therefore are not
persuaded by such arguments.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 9-11 and 17-19.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007