Appeal 2007-0378
Application 10/212,895
a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
As we noted previously, combining the teachings of Roeder with
Norga would not only facilitate precisely applying the same precursor to
multiple layers, but also facilitate precisely controlling the application of
multiple, incompatible precursors by using separate vaporizers. See, e.g.,
Roeder, col. 6, ll. 40-63. In our view, such an advantage would have been
readily apparent to the skilled artisan given the combined teachings of the
prior art and the general knowledge of those skilled in the art.
Appellants also argue that the prior art teaches away from using the
same paraelectric material precursor for the seed and PZT layers (Br. 13).
But as we previously indicated, the limitation is fully met by forming the
seed layer and overlying paraelectric layer with a common precursor as
taught in the prior art, notwithstanding the use of additional precursors.4
Regarding claim 16, Appellants argue that since Norga requires a
nano-crystalline conductive oxide electrode, Kim’s method of forming an
oxide electrode without a nano-crystalline electrode would render Norga
inoperative (Br. 14; Reply Br. 8). The Examiner argues that the combination
is proper since Norga and Kim teach using the same material for the
conductive oxide electrode (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner. On this record, we see no reason why
Kim’s PZT deposition method that uses an oxidizing gas with nitrous oxide
would not be compatible with the electrode of Norga, particularly since they
are the same material. Appellants have simply offered no evidence on this
4 See Pages 5-6, supra, of this opinion.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013