Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
film deposition, with Isobe relied upon only for a teaching of the formation
of a bottom electrode over a front-end structure.
With respect to dependent claims 95-97, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding (Answer 22-23) that Sakurai has a disclosure which
corresponds to the claimed “solid solution,” “5% doping,” and PbZrO3
features of these claims.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 94 in which Gilbert is added to the combination of Sakurai
and Isobe to address the “at least 2% excess Pb” feature of this claim. We
disagree, for all of the reasons stated above, with Appellants’ arguments that
Sakurai has no preheating step since we find no error in the Examiner’s
assertion that Sakurai’s disclosed heating of the wafer during the formation
of the bottom electrode is a preheating step performed before the deposition
of the PZT film. As to Appellants’ attack (Br. 21) on the Examiner’s
proposed combination, we would point out, as did the Examiner (Answer
21), that Sakurai, not Isobe, was not relied upon to provide a teaching of the
formation of a PZT film. The Isobe reference, on the other hand, was relied
upon to provide a teaching of the formation of a front-end structure.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013