Appeal No. 96-0633
Application 07/971,041
formed only in the trench in the device forming region.
Appellants’ characterization of Ishii at page 4 of the
principal brief on appeal already recognizes that with respect
to figure 1 the so-called trench 7 surrounds the device region
11 as set forth in independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal.
At the bottom of page 4 of the reply brief appellants
argue that claims “2 and 6 include apertures filled with a
layer of material confined within the aperture.” Claims 2 and
6 recited identical subject matter but different parent claims
and, instead of the characterization at page 4 of the reply
brief as just set forth by appellants, merely recite that the
second material is capable of completely filling the aperture
and providing an interface with the insulation layer. Ishii’s
Figures 1 and 3 show such. There is no more particular
recitation in dependent claims 2 and 6 of the feature argued
by appellants as to that expressed in the parent claims 1 and
5 on appeal. We also note that there are no particulars argued
with respect to dependent claims 3, 7, 9 and 10. Therefore,
we sustain both rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7,
9 and 10.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007