Appeal No. 2005-0453 Page 10
Application No. 09/893,866
cobalt, other elements including germanium are useful as a catalytic element for promoting the
crystallization of an amorphous silicon film (Yamazaki, col. 7, ll. 35-42). The references
together provide a suggestion of using germanium as the catalytic impurity with a reasonable
expectation of success in obtaining the desired catalytic affect.
Nor can we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have made the
modification called for by the claims. Once one of ordinary skill in the art knew that germanium
was useful as the catalyst, that person would have performed routine experimentation to find the
optimal concentration within the target which would result in the optimal film concentration, i.e.,
the film concentration which results in the desired crystallization enhancement.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claims 6, 8, 9, 19, 21, and 22 which has not been sufficiently
rebutted by Appellant.
Obviousness over Zhang in view of Yamazaki and the Admitted Prior Art
Claims 7, 10, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Zhang in view of Yamazaki and further in view of the Admitted Prior Art. We select claim
7 to represent the issues on appeal. Claim 7 specifies that the sputtering is performed “using a
process selected from the group including pulsed and non-pulsed direct current (DC) sputtering.”
As a first matter, the words “selected from the group including” do not limit the claim to
the recited sputtering processes. Other sputtering processes may be encompassed by the claim.
On the current record, however, the open ended nature of the claim group does not affect our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007