Appeal 2007-0442
Application 10/470,060
including non-preferred embodiments, “must be evaluated for what they
fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art”); Merck & Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“the fact that a
specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered”). As indicated supra, Faraone teaches employing any thin layer
of silicon susceptible to forming a silicon dioxide layer via thermal
oxidation. Faraone as a whole, like the Appellant, focuses on repeating
deposition and thermal oxidation of thin silicon layers to incrementally form
a desired thick silicon dioxide film to avoid any disadvantages associated
with conventional thick silicon dioxide film forming processes (Faraone,
Abstract and col. 1 to col. 4). Jacobson explains that, inter alia, thin
epitaxial silicon layers, like other deposited silicon layers, are well known to
be capable of being converted to silicon dioxide films upon being subjected
to thermal oxidation.
Thus, given the recognized need to form a thick silicon dioxide film
on a substrate (Faraone, col. 1, ll.9-20), we concur with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to deposit and thermally
oxidize thin silicon layers, such as amorphous and epitaxial silicon layers, in
Faraone’s thick silicon dioxide film forming process, with a reasonable
expectation of successfully forming a desired thick silicon dioxide film. See
also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1395 (2007)(“The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013