Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
After reviewing the Basceri reference in light of the arguments of
record, however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position
as stated in the Answer. In particular, we agree with the Examiner (Answer
13-14) that Basceri’s disclosure (col. 7, ll. 26-34) that the wafer is heated
before contact with the precursor can only be reasonably interpreted to
indicate that the wafer is heated, i.e., preheated, before deposition of the PZT
film. Further, although Appellants argue (Br. 14) the use of a precursor,
such as in Basceri, “is not the same as the use of gases during a preheat
step,” there is nothing in the claim language which precludes the use of a
precursor in preparing a wafer for PZT deposition.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Basceri, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 74-76 is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection, based on
Basceri, of dependent claims 80-85, 87-91, 93-95, and 97. Aside from
merely repeating the language of the dependent claims, Appellants’ sole
arguments reiterate those made with respect to independent claims 74-76,
which arguments we found to be unpersuasive for all the reasons discussed
supra. Simply pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt to point
out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art does not comply
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(a)(vii) and does not amount to a separate argument
for patentability, In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection, based on Gilbert, of claims 74, 75, 80-82, 84, 85, 87-91, and 93,
we sustain this rejection as well. With respect to independent claims 74 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013