Appeal 2007-0378
Application 10/212,895
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to deposit the seed layer in Norga in the manner
suggested by Roeder to grow a bulk paraelectric layer of crystalline structure
for a capacitor (Answer 3-4).
Appellants argue that Norga does not teach nor suggest using the
same paraelectric material precursor for the seed and paraelectric layers as
claimed. Appellants contend that Norga teaches away from the claimed
invention since a seed layer of high-Ti PZT2 is deposited before the PZT
layer to prevent reactions with the bottom electrode; therefore, the same
precursor cannot be used (Br. 11). Regarding claims 7, 10, 17, and 20,
Appellants add that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention,
particularly noting that Roeder deposits different precursor compositions
(Br. 12).
The Examiner notes that Norga’s PZT layer 35 comprises two sub-
layers: (1) a first PZT sub-layer with a higher Ti concentration that
corresponds to the claimed seed layer, and (2) a second PZT sub-layer that
corresponds to the claimed paraelectric layer (Answer 7, 13). Appellants
respond that these two sub-layers do not constitute a seed layer and a
paraelectric layer as claimed, particularly in view of Norga’s teaching of
depositing a seed layer in ¶ 0063 (Reply Br. 3).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and
11. At the outset, we note that although claim 1 requires using the same
paraelectric precursor for both the seed layer and the overlying paraelectric
layer as Appellants argue, the claim nonetheless does not preclude using
2 PZT is an acronym for a lead zirconate titanate composition. See Roeder,
col. 3, l. 26.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013