Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
hole 11 per se. This observation alone meets the broad language
of claim 46 that there be “a plurality of narrow portions at
predetermined length intervals,” since there are two halves at
each repetitive connection hole area 11. In the context of the
normal manner in the art of making of memories in an array as
best represented by Kumagai, it would have been apparant to the
artisan that this just quoted language is met by the plural
halves at each connection hole or via, as well as along the
entire length of the bit line itself since there are plural
contact holes known in the art to exist along each bit line.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection are
misplaced. That the contact hole may be filled with conductive
material is inapposite since the claim is directed only to the
levels of the wiring layer structures per se. The normal filling
of the contact hole is beyond the scope of the claims on appeal
and therefore such a teaching in the reference as relied upon is
merely an additional teaching beyond that which is required by
the claims. Appellant’s argument at the middle of page 7 of the
principal Brief on appeal relates to disclosed but unclaimed
features relating to the disclosed purpose of intentional break
off or cutting off of the low melting point conductive layer at
the regions 14 in disclosed Figure 2. Additionally, that Okuyama
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007