Appeal 2007-2510
Application 10/389,456
1 the nitride layer not being claimed." (Answer at 7, see also 16, 17, 18, 20;
2 see also Final Rejection at 5 and 9.)
3 11. We do not find it necessary to describe the Examiner's conclusions as
4 to the teachings of Fitzgerald or Moon.
5 12. In response to each rejection, Wang argues that (a) the Examiner has
6 failed to establish a suggestion to combine the teachings of Economikos with
7 the other references (Br. at 6, 13, and 15); and (b) the rejections are improper
8 because at least one element of the rejected subject matter is not taught or
9 suggested in any of the references (Br. at 9, 14, and 16.)
10 13. More particularly, with regard to the alleged failure to provide a
11 reason to combine the references, Wang argues that none of the passages
12 cited by the Examiner "disclose, teach, or suggest any 'art recognized
13 equivalence' between silicon and silicon germanium. . . . There is no
14 description of any possible interchangeability of pure silicon with silicon-
15 germanium or that such materials are equivalent." (Br. at 7–8.)
16 14. With regard to the allegedly missing element, Wang argues that none
17 of the references teach or suggest forming liners in trenches that are in
18 contact with the germanium-containing layer, and that Economikos, in
19 particular, teaches that a silicon nitride layer is provided between the
20 substrate and the deposited α-silicon. (Br. at 13.) The silicon nitride layer
21 thus prevents the α-silicon layer from contacting the semiconductor silicon
22 substrate.
23 15. Wang argues that nothing in the disclosure supports a broad reading
24 of the phrase "in contact with" that encompasses an intervening layer, and
25 that the ordinary meaning of the phrase applies. (Br. at 12.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013