Appeal 2007-0665
Application 09/772,986
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION
In addressing the language of independent claims 1 and 5, the
Examiner finds that Hisao discloses a thin film semiconductor device having
an upper layer gate electrode with a thickness of about 50-300 nm and a
lower gate electrode with a thickness of 50-200 nm. According to the
Examiner (Answer 3), Hisao’s two gate layers taken together have a
combined thickness of about 100-500 nm allowing for a lower limit value of
slightly above or less than 100 nm, thereby meeting the claimed
requirements.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Hisao
so as to establish a case of anticipation. Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7; Reply
Br. 3) focus on the contention that the 100nm lower limit of Hisao’s gate
electrode thickness range does not satisfy the requirements of claims 1 and 5
which require a gate thickness of less than 100 nm.
After reviewing the disclosure of Hisao in light of the arguments of
record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in
the Briefs. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Hisao coincides with that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013