Appeal 2007-0378
Application 10/212,895
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 7, 10, 17, and 20.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-16,
18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Norga in view of
Roeder and further in view of Kim. The Examiner finds that the collective
teachings of Norga and Roeder disclose every claimed feature except for (1)
forming an oxide electrode; (2) depositing the paraelectric layer using
nitrous oxide (N2O) in the CVD process; (3) depositing the seed layer by
using oxidizer gas to provide an oxidized seed layer; and (4) the claimed
pressure, temperature, surface roughness, and thickness ranges. The
Examiner cites Kim as teaching these features and concludes that it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form
the electrode, seed layer, and paraelectric layers in the manner claimed. The
Examiner adds that the specific ranges of pressure, temperature, surface
roughness, and thickness claimed in claims 3-5, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, and 19
involve routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art
(Answer 5-6).
Appellants first argue that the Examiner has provided no motivation
for combining Roeder with Norga (Br. 13; Reply Br. 7). However, we find
ample motivation on this record for the skilled artisan to combine the
references. It is well settled that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly
in the prior art, but rather may be implicit from the prior art as a whole. The
test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013