Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
For the above reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Answer and
Final Office Action, we do not find the substantially similar arguments made
against the Examiner’s second stated rejection persuasive of any reversible
error therein (Br. 11-15 and Reply Br. 6-8). In this regard and as noted
above, the second stated obviousness rejection differs from the first stated
obviousness rejection in the employment of Sato instead of Collins as one of
the applied secondary references. Indeed, Sato references the disclosure of
Collins (U.S. Patent No. 5,210,466 (Sato; col. 1, l. 32 – col. 2, l. 43)).
Moreover, as explained by the Examiner in the Answer, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have expected that the shape of the dielectric layer and
lower electrode of Hanada would forestall problems with respect to non-
uniformities due to any standing wave effect. Thus, Appellant’s argument
pertaining to this matter has not been established to be a disincentive or
teaching away from for the modification of Hanada as proposed by the
Examiner (Answer 12).
We are cognizant of Appellant’s reference to page 2 of the
Specification for a discussion of a non-uniformity problem at higher RF
frequencies and during large substrate size processing (Reply Br. 2, 5, and
7). However, the Examiner has repeatedly addressed this argued problem
that may be faced by a skilled artisan upon scale up in the Final Office
Action and the Answer by noting the teachings of Hanada respecting the
shape of the lower electrode and dielectric layer associated therewith as
response to substantially the same arguments as presented in a declaration
form by the inventor (Final Office Action 9-11). The declaration itself has
not been relied upon in the Briefs; hence, it is not before us for additional
review in support of Appellant’s arguments made in the Briefs.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013