Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 Based on a review of Gordon '252 cited in Appellants' specification,
2 Appellants cannot deny that the prior art also describes compositions which
3 can be made using a mixture of (1) a precursor of silicon oxide and (2) a
4 precursor of a metal oxide, including tin oxide, titanium oxide and indium
5 oxide (Table A, col. 6, lines 8-15).
6 Lastly, based on their description of Hochberg in their specification,
7 Appellants cannot deny that trimethyl phosphite (TMP) is known in the art
8 for enhanced deposition of silicon oxide films.
9
10 Differences
11 The difference between Gordon '252 and the subject matter of claim
12 30 is that Gordon '252 does not describe the use of trimethyl phosphite as an
13 enhancer to the deposition of a mixture of both a silicon oxide and a tin
14 oxide precursor.
15 The difference between Hochberg and the subject matter of claim 30
16 is that Hochberg does not describe the use of a tin oxide precursor along
17 with a precursor of silicon oxide.
18
19 Level of skill in the art
20 In this case, the prior art provides the evidence of the level of skill in
21 the art in this particular case.
22 Those skilled in the art use known techniques to accomplish known
23 objectives. What we learn from Hochberg is that a person having ordinary
24 skill in the art would understand that TEP can be used to enhance deposition
25 rates of films made from silicon oxide. Accordingly, the level of skill is
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013