Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
§ 103 as obvious over Sugiura and Takasaki and further in view
of Esquivel. As explained more fully below, it appears to us
that the examiner did not understand certain elements of
independent claim 21. Under the reasoning of In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962), we are
constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claim 21
under § 103 since the examiner admittedly did not understand
elements of the claim which we determine to be essential to
applying the cited art to claim 21. The examiner’s failure to
properly identify the limitations of claim 21 and the
examiner’s failure to respond to appellants’ arguments
regarding the merits of the prior art rejection force us to
conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of claim 21. Since we reverse
the rejection as to Claim 21, we reverse the rejection of
claims 22-28 all of which ultimately depend from claim 21.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Sugiura does not
disclose "a plurality of slots etched in said field insulating
regions, said slots exposing the surface of said source/drain
regions and extending the length of said source/drain regions
and extending at least between two adjacent rows of memory
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007