Appeal No. 2005-1894
Application No. 10/209,004
argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above regarding
the rejection of claim 2, Hosaka would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, forming Sandhu’s lower
electrode into a nodular shape.
The appellant argues that Hosaka does not form a contact
(reply brief, pages 3-4). Such a disclosure is not needed for
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
invention because Sandhu’s method includes forming a
contact (65).
For the above reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 7 and
claim 9 that stands or falls therewith.
Claim 8
Claim 8 requires planarizing a contact to make it
substantially coplanar with a surface of an insulating material.
Sandhu’s prior art figure 1 shows such a structure (contact 3
substantially coplanar with the insulating material on each side
of it).
The appellant questions why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use the prior art configuration
disclosed by Sandhu when Sandhu teaches away from it (brief,
page 8; reply brief, page 3). Sandhu teaches that he seeks to
provide increased density, decreased contact resistance between
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007