Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
In applying Maeda against the limitations of representative
claim 8, the Examiner has recognized that, contrary to the
claimed requirements, the conductive layer 32 in Maeda is not
formed on the field oxide layer 20-1 but rather on an interlayer
insulator 30. Nevertheless, the Examiner suggests (Answer, page
10) that “...both layers (20-1) and (30) are isolation layers
and are also patterned similarly and thus can be considered as
portions of a composite isolation layer.” In our view, however,
there is no support in the Answer for the position of the
Examiner. No evidence has been presented that would support the
assertion that Appellant’s claimed device would function in the
same manner with the addition of an intervening layer between
the conductive plate and the field oxide. Accordingly, since
all of the claimed limitations are not present in Maeda, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 8 is not
sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s alternative 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 8 based on Maeda. We find nothing in
the Examiner’s reasoning which indicates how and in what manner
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007