Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
answer. The examiner alleges that the step of achieving no
bird’s beak is not disclosed adequately by appellants. The
examiner further asserts that appellants have not disclosed that
their disclosed process is of “not fully recessed” type which
would have eliminated the bird’s head (id. at page 4).
Appellants argue (brief at pages 6-15) that indeed the
process disclosed by appellants would have enabled an artisan to
obtain the recited substantially reduced bird’s beak in the
manufacture of the device claimed. Appellants discuss (id.) how
a fully recessed process and a not fully recessed process would
have been clear to an artisan reading the disclosure of
appellants. However, we are of the opinion that the more
relevant argument is (brief at page 8) that:
FIGS. 2B AND 3B of the currently pending
application clearly illustrate an example of a field
oxide that has an upper surface above an upper surface
of the silicon substrate, but that is substantially
without a bird’s head. The specification provides an
example of a method of forming a field oxide without
substantial formation of bird’s head.
The examiner in his response reiterates his position. We
are of the view that consistent with the annunciations made by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007