Appeal No. 94-0809
Application 07/707,365
We have given the language of appellants’ claimed process
its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
description of the invention in the specification. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We
have reviewed the examiner’s findings with regard to the
teachings of the cited prior art. While we cannot agree with
appellants’ view that the “element separating trenches . . .
serve no purpose other than to isolate elements” (Br., p. 3,
first para.), we hold that the examiner’s rejection is neither
supported by objective evidence nor reasonable. We restate here
that the examiner has the initial burden to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants argue that (1) the examiner is reading Nishizaka
too broadly and (2) Nishizaka’s polysilicon plugs 10, i.e., the
buried polycrystalline silicon layers 10, are not part of or over
the source/drain regions (RB, p. 1, third para.). Appellants’
argument is supported by the greater weight of evidence in this
record. However, our deliberations are not therefore put to
rest. Appellants’ claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Nishizaka, Godejahn and O’Mara.
The examiner seems to rely upon the teachings of Godejahn
and O’Mara for motivation to form a field effect transistor
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007