Appeal No. 2005-1503
Application No. 10/165,888
boundaries (which include oxygen deficient high-k compounds)
avoid the HfO2 and HfSiO4 stoichiometric compositions, which are
likely to be easily crystallizable. Nitrided versions would
start with oxygen-deficient regions in Figure 4. See page 4,
second full paragraph, of appellants’ specification, and Figure
4.
Upon our review of appellants’ Figure 4, Figure 4 indicates
which compounds are excluded by the broken line boundaries.
However, the area enclosed by the broken line boundaries is
indicated as “approximate” stoichiometry. Also, there is no
other information as to what is included/enclosed by the broken
line boundaries. In this way, we agree with the examiner that
claim 9 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph rejection, of claim 9.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 9
We consider claim 1 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3 through 4 of the answer. The examiner states that he
broadly interprets “ion bombardment” to encompass exposure to
oxidizing gases. The examiner also particularly notes Duncombe’s
use of chemical vapor deposition. The examiner then discusses
Keeble as exemplary for showing that in a chemical vapor
deposition, gases that enter a chamber can be energized by means
of a plasma, to promote the reaction. Excited ions are drawn
toward a substrate and impact the substrate at high speed (ion
bombardment). Answer, page 4.
Hence, it appears that the examiner’s position is two-fold.
First, the examiner finds that Duncombe teaches, in column
3, beginning at line 16, that step(c) involves annealing an
amorphous dielectric material. This annealing step is described
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007