Appeal 2007-0665
Application 09/772,986
Claims 1-8, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hisao. Claims 14 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hisao.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed waived [see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(b), with respect to appealed claims 1-8, 13,
and 15, does Hisao have a disclosure which anticipates the claimed
invention? Specifically, does Hisao disclose a thin film
semiconductor device with a metallic material gate electrode
having a thickness of less than 100nm?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 14-16,
has the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness
based on the disclosure of Hisao?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013