Appeal No. 2005-0579
Application No. 09/887,910
that specializes in forming gate dielectric layers, and that "I
believe that the only reason why the Varian tool found
application in the formation of gate dielectric layers is because
I was transferred, and was able to apply the knowledge gained in
this prior ion implantation field to the formation of gate
dielectric layers" (paragraph 6 of Affidavit). Affiant further
states that "[t]he people of Varian were quite surprised to learn
that the energy levels of their machine can be reduced by one
order of magnitude and still find a new application" (paragraph 7
of Affidavit). Affiant concludes by stating "I believe that a
person, such as employed by Varian, having skill in the art and
having knowledge of the prior art, would not have been able to
modify the prior art to render the present invention" (paragraph
8 of Affidavit).
Like the examiner, we find appellants' argument and
supporting affidavit to be non-probative of nonobviousness. The
fundamental flaw in appellants' argument and evidence is that
they fail to address the thrust of the examiner's rejection. In
particular, the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on
the collective teachings of Goeckner and Aronowitz. Indeed, it
is well settled that the proper inquiry in the determination of
obviousness is what the references, taken collectively, would
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007