Appeal 2007-2510
Application 10/389,456
1 4. The Examiner also finds that Economikos teaches providing a
2 semiconductor material, namely amorphous silicon ("α-silicon"), in the
3 prepared trenches, and subsequently oxidizing the α-silicon. (Answer at 5.)
4 5. The Examiner finds that Van Zant teaches that silicon and germanium
5 are recognized as common substrate materials and that they are therefore
6 recognized equivalents as substrate materials; and that Van Zant teaches that
7 silicon-germanium substrates are useful for making faster [integrated circuit]
8 chips. (Answer at 5.)
9 6. The Examiner finds that Vossen teaches that CVD of silicon at 500°C
10 yields amorphous silicon films; that CVD of silicon at 600°C yields
11 "monocrystalline [sic: microcrystalline] films." (Answer at 5.)
12 7. The Examiner concludes that "it would be [sic: would have been]
13 obvious that the CVD amorphous film of Economikos would be deposited at
14 low temperatures, specifically, 500–600°C." (Answer at 5.)
15 8. The Examiner characterizes the final "intended" limitation in claim 21
16 as functional language that is not entitled to any patentable weight. (Answer
17 at 6.)
18 9. The Examiner explains that the failure of Economikos to disclose a
19 semiconductor or metal in the trenches that is "in contact with the substrate"
20 is not a problem because the limitation "'in contact with' is not in 'direct
21 contact with' and does not preclude an intervening layer." (Answer at 7, see
22 also 16, 17, 18, and 20; see also Final Rejection at 7 and at 9.)
23 10. Immediately after this argument, the Examiner writes, "[f]urther,
24 attention is drawn toward claim 1 of Economikos, where the claim language
25 is broad and includes a layer of silicon in direct contact with the substrate,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013