Appeal 2007-2384
Application 10/943,424
According to Appellants, replacing the polysilicon layer 106 of Ryu with an
amorphous silicon layer would not have been obvious (Br. 9). Appellants,
therefore, contend that the combination of Ryu and Bae do not teach, show,
or suggest the gate stack for a semi-conductor MOS device as recited in
independent claims 1 and 21 and their respective dependent claims (Id.).
The Examiner maintains that the combination of Ryu and Bae would
produce the claimed invention (Answer 4). The Examiner maintains that
the disclosed advantage is not necessary to produce a working MOSFET
because the reference discloses that the seed layer is optional (Ryu, col. 6,
ll. 63-66). Therefore, the use of polysilicon as a seed layer is disclosed to
merely be a preferred embodiment. The Examiner maintains that disclosed
examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away
from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner maintains that a reference may be relied upon for all that it
would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
including non-preferred embodiments (Id.). The Examiner maintains that
the disclosure in Bae that a working MOSFET is produced by using a SiGe
gate grown on an amorphous silicon seed layer would have provided further
indication that a working MOSFET would have been produced using
amorphous silicon as the seed layer in the process of Ryu and that one
skilled in the art, therefore, would have had a reasonable expectation of
success that the process of the combination would produce a useful device
with the expectation that the advantage of using a polysilicon seed layer
disclosed in Ryu would not be obtained (Answer 5-6).
Appellants again maintain that Ryu expressly teaches away from
using a seed layer that prevents diffusion (Reply Br. 2). We cannot agree
with Appellants. Here, we find that Appellants’ arguments go beyond the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013