Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ attack on Sakurai as
failing to disclose doping with Nb material since the claims are written in
alternative format and Sakurai clearly discloses doping with La material.
We also find no error in the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer 23) that
the stoichiometry of the PZT file disclosed by Sakurai supports a 5%
contribution of La material as claimed.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 76
and 95-97 based on the combination of Sakurai and Isobe. Unlike
previously discussed independent claims 74 and 75 which require the
presence of inert and oxidizer gases during preheating, independent claim 76
sets forth that the preheating step takes place in a vacuum. Appellants’
arguments in response (Br. 46-48) initially focus on the contention that
nowhere in the Sakurai disclosure is there any mention of a preheating step
as presently claimed. We agree with the Examiner (Answer 21), however,
that although the term “preheating” is not used by Sakurai, the disclosure at
column 7, lines 40-45 of Sakurai, which discusses the formation of the
bottom electrode at a substrate temperature of 600 degrees C, can be
considered a “preheating” step since it takes place before the deposition of
the PZT film.
We also find to be without merit Appellants’ attack on the Isobe
reference as failing to disclose both the use of a PZT film and a preheating
step as presently claimed. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 21-22),
however, Sakurai is relied upon for a disclosure of preheating before PZT
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013