Appeal No. 2006-2209
Application No. 10/270,913
Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 14, 17 to 22, and 24-25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combined teachings of Ying ‘494 and Ying ‘073. We affirm.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach
the claimed bias range and does not provide motivation to
modify the teachings of the references to meet the present
invention.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s reliance on the Ying ‘073 reference
for teaching a method of forming a ferroelectric capacitor that
differs from the claimed invention in the etching of the bottom
layer. As in the above discussed rejection, the Examiner
relies on Ying ‘494 for describing plasma etching using a low
bias. Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above
regarding the claimed bias of less than 150 watts. (Brief,
page 8). As such, Appellants’ arguments have been addressed
above and in the Answer.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 3 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ko, Ying ‘494 and Ying ‘073. We affirm.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007