Appeal No. 2006-2209
Application No. 10/270,913
Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach
the claimed atmosphere in which the bottom electrode layer is
etched (Brief, p. 8). The Examiner asserts that Ying ‘073
teaches the claimed atmosphere (Answer, p. 8). Appellants have
not refuted the Examiner’s position that the claimed atmosphere
would have been obvious over the teachings of Ying ‘073 in the
responsive Brief. As such for the reasons stated by the
Examiner we affirm the rejection.
Claims 10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combined teachings of Ko, Ying ‘494, Ying
‘073 and Van Buskirk. These claims have also been separately
rejected over the combined teachings of Ying ‘494, Ying ‘073
and Van Buskirk. For each of these above stated rejections,
the Appellants rely upon the arguments previously presented
regarding claims 1 and 11 (Brief, p. 9). Appellants further
argue that Van Buskirk does not remedy the deficiencies of the
above cited reference. The Examiner presented factual
determinations regarding the suitability of adding the
teachings of Van Buskirk to the above cited prior art
references. These determinations are reasonable. Since
Appellants have failed to specifically challenge the Examiner’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007