Appeal No. 2005-2351
Application No. 09/904,112
Kunitomo of oxidizing the upper layer electrode, much less using
a thermal oxidation method.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8-10, 43-44, 50,
and 57-61 under section 103(a) over Kunitomo in view of Joo is
reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 62-63, the examiner
applies Kingon in addition to Kunitomo and Joo to show a method
of forming a platinum electrode upon an upper layer electrode
(Answer, pages 6-7). Accordingly, we determine that Kingon does
not remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to
Kunitomo and Joo. Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 62-63 under section 103(a) over Kunitomo in view of Joo
and Kingon.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-6, 15, 22-30, 37-39, 74-76 and
100-105 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Kunitomo is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 40-42 and 45-46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Kunitomo is reversed. The rejection of claims 8-
10, 43-44, 50 and 57-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kunitomo in
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007