Appeal No. 2005-2351
Application No. 09/904,112
appeal). In this rejection (Answer, pages 4-5), the examiner
fails to find that Kunitomo discloses the oxidation of the upper
electrode (see Kunitomo, col. 21, ll. 47-65). Therefore, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 40-42
and 45-46 under section 102(e) over Kunitomo.
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The examiner finds that Kunitomo discloses the method “as
substantially claimed” but does not disclose the method of
oxidizing the upper layer electrode using a gas plasma and a
temperature from about 250 to 500 °C. (Answer, page 6).
Therefore, the examiner applies Joo for the disclosure of a
method of oxidizing an electrode using gas plasma (id.). In view
of these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to oxidize the upper electrode of Kunitomo
by a gas plasma technique as taught by Joo “in order to avoid a
heat treatment at a high temperature” (id.). We disagree.
From the examiner’s finding that Kunitomo does not disclose
the specific claimed method of oxidizing the upper layer
electrode, it is implicit that Kunitomo does disclose oxidizing
the upper layer electrode in general. However, as discussed
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007