Appeal 2007-0442
Application 10/470,060
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Faraone and Jacobson; and
2) Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Faraone, Jacobson, Corboy, Jr., Sato, and Arai.
In support of his rejection of the claims on appeal1, the Examiner has
found (Answer 3-4) that Faraone, like the Appellant, broadly teaches:
[A] process of producing thick layers of silicon dioxide on a
silicon substrate by initially oxidizing the substrate to form a
thin layer of silicon dioxide thereon, subsequently depositing a
thin layer of silicon and oxidizing this thin silicon layer to
increase the size of the silicon dioxide layer (Summary of
Invention). To form a desired thickness of silicon dioxide the
deposition steps and oxidation steps are repeated as necessary
(Claim 1, column 4; Summary of Invention, column 2). Faraone
discloses the thickness of silicon per one deposition between
120 and 400 nanometers (Column 3, lines 6-8).
Recognizing that Faraone does not specifically mention the claimed
epitaxial silicon layer, the Examiner has relied on Jacobson to explain that
Falaone’s silicon layer includes the claimed epitaxial silicon layer (Answer
4). Specifically, the Examiner has found that consistent with Faraone’s
disclosure above, Jacobson teaches that deposition and thermal oxidation of
a thin epitaxial silicon layer on a silicon substrate is useful for forming an
insulating silicon dioxide coating (id).
1 According to the Appellant (Br. 5), “claims 3, 5, 6, and 7 stand or fall
together.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013