Appeal 2007-0665
Application 09/772,986
35 U.S.C § 103(a) REJECTION
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14 and
16 based on the teachings of Hisao, Appellants’ arguments in response assert
a failure to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the Hisao reference. In particular,
Appellants contend (Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3) that Hisao does not disclose a thin
film semiconductor device having a gate electrode with a thickness of 90
nm. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no
evidentiary support for the conclusion that it would have been obvious to the
ordinarily skilled artisan to form the gate electrode of Hisao with a thickness
of 90 nm.
Our review of the arguments of record, however, finds us in
agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. We
initially note that, while we found Hisao’s gate thickness disclosure of
“about 100 nm” to not be anticipatory of a claim limitation reciting “less
than 100 nm,” we did find that the language “about 100 nm” allows for
values slightly below 100 nm. Accordingly, a prima facie case of
obviousness is established for claimed values of “less than 100 nm” since
Hisao’s disclosed combined gate thickness range of 100-500 nm overlaps
the claimed range in view of the fact that the lower limit of the range can be
slightly below 100 nm. (Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1577, 16 USPQ2d at 1936).
As to the question of the obviousness of particular values of gate
thickness below 100 nm, such as the claimed 90 nm, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion, based on the teachings of Hisao, that it would have
been “obvious to make the gate thickness as small as possible by selecting a
gate thickness of 90 nm since the gate thickness is [sic, a] variable of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013