Appeal No. 2005-2351
Application No. 09/904,112
dielectric constant oxide dielectric material occurs “under
oxidizing conditions such that at least the surface of said
conductive oxide electrode is provided with enough oxygen to
provide stability” (e.g., see claim 1 on appeal). However, we
determine that appellants have not pointed to any disclosure in
their specification where any definitions or guidelines
establishing the specific oxidizing conditions necessary to meet
this claimed functional limitation are taught. As correctly
noted by the examiner (Answer, pages 9-10), appellants merely
disclose that oxidation of the lower electrode provides the
conductive oxide with enough oxygen to provide stability.
Furthermore, we determine that the examiner has established that
Kunitomo describes oxidizing steps under the same conditions as
appellants’ process, directed to the same materials (ruthenium
electrodes and tantalum oxide insulating film) for the same
advantages (to reduce leakage current in DRAM cells) as
appellants’ process. Therefore, we determine that the examiner
has shifted the burden to appellants to establish that the
oxidizing conditions and amount of oxygen claimed differ
substantially from the conditions and amounts disclosed by
Kunitomo. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007