Appeal No. 2005-0453 Page 9
Application No. 09/893,866
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 11, 13, and 15-18 which has not been sufficiently
rebutted by Appellant.
Obviousness over Zhang in view of Yamazaki
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8, 9, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yamazaki. We select claim 8 to represent the issues on
appeal for this rejection. Claim 8 limits the impurity to germanium in a concentration of 5-30 at
% in the target and 5-30 at % in the film. The Examiner relies upon Yamazaki as evidence that
it was known in the art of TFT production to use germanium as a crystallization catalyst in
silicon films (Answer, p. 5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a motivation to combine the Zhang
and Yamazaki references (Brief, pp. 11-12). Appellant further argues that even if the references
could be combined, there is nothing in the Yamazaki disclosure to suggest a modification of
Zhang in a way that would make the claimed invention of either claim 1 or claim 12 obvious
(Brief, p. 12).
There is a reason, suggestion, or motivation to use germanium as the catalyst in the
process of Zhang. Zhang describes using as the catalytic material “a simple substance like nickel
(Ni), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), platinum (Pt), or compound such as silicide thereof.” (Zhang, col. 3,
ll. 50-53). The use of the word “like” indicates that the specific elements recited are merely
examples and not an exclusive list. Yamazaki indicates that, in addition to nickel, iron, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007